Five Points for a National Championship...

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Thankfully next season we won't be subject to 30-47 minutes per game of the most inept PG play seen at the high major level, so therefore the subject will go to bed forever anyway...

Again, drop the hyperbole, and you will make a lot more friends.

[MU82]

But, of course, if we'd have played Dawson those 30 minutes per game...things sure would have been worse...like worse than 9-9 in Big East, and no wins over Top 25 teams...yeah.....whatever...

...he just insisted on trotting out a guy at the most important position on the floor who had ZERO offensive ability and would not take a shot outside of 3' from the basket.

See for all of Ners' bluster and repetitiveness, here is where I have to agree with him.

Even as I generally supported Buzz last season -- mostly because I felt he had earned the benefit of the doubt based upon his first five seasons -- I questioned his rotation.

As I looked at what we accomplished -- amazingly little -- I just kept coming back to, "We need to try something else, just because." When Buzz did try something else, Dawson against Georgetown, it worked but Buzz never really gave Dawson much of a run again. It took Buzz until the last few games of the season to give Burton any kind of extended run, too. And JJJ never got more than a minute here or there.

If we were having any success at all, I would have been 100% behind Buzz's decisions. But we weren't ... so common sense dictates you try something different. If something different ends up not working either ... oh well, at least you tried.

Back in February, I dismissed claims that Buzz was just being stubborn. But using 20/20 hindsight, that does appear to be the case. He seemed to have had an ulterior motive above and beyond trying to win.

For the record, I am not a "Dawson guy." I haven't seen enough of him to make the kind of claims that Ners does about him. But I certainly would have liked to have seen more of him -- and JJJ and Burton and Taylor.

Why? Just because.

[NersEllenson]

Again, drop the hyperbole, and you will make a lot more friends.

There isn't any hyperbole about it TAMU.  Go find 1 other starting PG who got 975 minutes (30.3 minutes per game) a season who turned in worse offensive numbers than Derrick in the last 20 years.  Good luck. May be possible to find a guy who played 30 minutes a game at the PG and averaged 5ppg, yet I doubt you'll find one that shot 7% from 3 point line, and made exactly ONE three point shot for the year, and shot worse than 43% from the FT Line.  Derrick simply did not need to be guarded within 5' feet on the perimeter....it was a joke...I've never seen anything like it before in 25 years of high major college basketball at the PG position.

[NersEllenson]

See for all of Ners' bluster and repetitiveness, here is where I have to agree with him.

Even as I generally supported Buzz last season -- mostly because I felt he had earned the benefit of the doubt based upon his first five seasons -- I questioned his rotation.

As I looked at what we accomplished -- amazingly little -- I just kept coming back to, "We need to try something else, just because." When Buzz did try something else, Dawson against Georgetown, it worked but Buzz never really gave Dawson much of a run again. It took Buzz until the last few games of the season to give Burton any kind of extended run, too. And JJJ never got more than a minute here or there.

If we were having any success at all, I would have been 100% behind Buzz's decisions. But we weren't ... so common sense dictates you try something different. If something different ends up not working either ... oh well, at least you tried.

Back in February, I dismissed claims that Buzz was just being stubborn. But using 20/20 hindsight, that does appear to be the case. He seemed to have had an ulterior motive above and beyond trying to win.

For the record, I am not a "Dawson guy." I haven't seen enough of him to make the kind of claims that Ners does about him. But I certainly would have liked to have seen more of him -- and JJJ and Burton and Taylor.

Why? Just because.

Here's the lame argument the same 5 or so posters here try to make regarding Derrick - "Buzz didn't have a better option, and he sees the guys for 6 months in practice and surely knows the team best."  Here's my rebuttal, that they still won't answer:

Was Jake a better player than Todd?  (Why did Jake start and get more minutes?)

Is there anything Juan Anderson does better on a court than Deonte Burton?  (Yet why did Juan start and play more minutes than Burton?)

Why was Davante Gardner not played 32 minutes per game, every game/not started?

Buzz had better options...he just didn't play them.  He gave his two most limited talented players the most minutes, while limiting his most talented guys minutes.  What other head coach brings his two leading scorers off the bench??? (And doesn't max their minutes?!)

[Jay Bee]

Here's the lame argument the same 5 or so posters here try to make regarding Derrick - "Buzz didn't have a better option, and he sees the guys for 6 months in practice and surely knows the team best."  Here's my rebuttal, that they still won't answer:

Buzz had better options...he just didn't play them.  He gave his two most limited talented players the most minutes, while limiting his most talented guys minutes.  What other head coach brings his two leading scorers off the bench??? (And doesn't max their minutes?!)

I'm not one of the 5 or so and I agree - Buzz had better options and didn't utilize them. His on court personnel decisions were poor if the goal is to win basketball games.

However, that is not the case when it comes to Dawson vs. Derrick. John's upside is greater than Derrick's, but he was going to be inconsistent and do the same thing many freshman do - struggle with defense, including fouling a ton (6.4 fouls per 40 with only 0.7% steal rate for Dawson -- Derrick by comparison was 3.2 & 2.5, respectively, which are both very good) and turning it over a ton (27% TO rate for Dawson vs. 20% for Derrick).

Derrick was 1/14 for 3FG and still shot the ball from the field better than Dawson.

Last year, the arguments for Dawson over Derrick were just not there... and comparisons between Derrick & Craft? That gets a BIG SHEESH.

Now, let's get back to the real topic at hand - my exceptional calls on stocks.

[NersEllenson]

I'm not one of the 5 or so and I agree - Buzz had better options and didn't utilize them. His on court personnel decisions were poor if the goal is to win basketball games.

However, that is not the case when it comes to Dawson vs. Derrick. John's upside is greater than Derrick's, but he was going to be inconsistent and do the same thing many freshman do - struggle with defense, including fouling a ton (6.4 fouls per 40 with only 0.7% steal rate for Dawson -- Derrick by comparison was 3.2 & 2.5, respectively, which are both very good) and turning it over a ton (27% TO rate for Dawson vs. 20% for Derrick).

Derrick was 1/14 for 3FG and still shot the ball from the field better than Dawson.

Last year, the arguments for Dawson over Derrick were just not there... and comparisons between Derrick & Craft? That gets a BIG SHEESH.

Now, let's get back to the real topic at hand - my exceptional calls on stocks.

JB - You have had some good stock calls...tip of the cap to you..Decker Outdoor was very good about a year ago when you rec'd that stock...

I discount the turnover rate between Derrick/Dawson simply because Derrick almost NEVER faced any true on ball defense/pressure - due to his awful shooting.  When Derrick was defended aggressively on ball...it was quite shaky.  Furthermore...I just don't put a lot of "stock" in overall stats when one guy's minutes were so incredibly inconsistent, and spotty...comparative to the other guy who got more consistent minutes than any guy on the team.

Dawson absolutely his a much higher upside than Derrick, and I would have preferred that been tapped into last year...so he'd have more game experience coming into this season....while also, potentially having been able to help the team last year...as it was clear from very early on if Derrick were getting 30+ minutes per game...we weren't going to be very good.

[MU82]

I'm not one of the 5 or so and I agree - Buzz had better options and didn't utilize them. His on court personnel decisions were poor if the goal is to win basketball games.

However, that is not the case when it comes to Dawson vs. Derrick. John's upside is greater than Derrick's, but he was going to be inconsistent and do the same thing many freshman do - struggle with defense, including fouling a ton (6.4 fouls per 40 with only 0.7% steal rate for Dawson -- Derrick by comparison was 3.2 & 2.5, respectively, which are both very good) and turning it over a ton (27% TO rate for Dawson vs. 20% for Derrick).

Derrick was 1/14 for 3FG and still shot the ball from the field better than Dawson.

Last year, the arguments for Dawson over Derrick were just not there... and comparisons between Derrick & Craft? That gets a BIG SHEESH.

Now, let's get back to the real topic at hand - my exceptional calls on stocks.

But Jay Bee ... we weren't winning with Derrick. So again, let's try something different. Change for the sake of change. Some of the greatest coaches in NFL history -- Shula, Noll, Landry, Allen -- changed quarterbacks "just because." Some of the greatest hockey coaches ever changed goalies "just because."

When things are working, great. When they aren't, you can't just keep trying the same thing over and over and over.

I don't know for certain that Dawson would have been better than Derrick, but I would have been willing to give it a shot more than once or twice all season. Not because I think Dawson is a godsend but because I knew Derrick wasn't!

[real chili 83]

Thankfully next season we won't be subject to 30-47 minutes per game of the most inept PG play seen at the high major level, so therefore the subject will go to bed forever anyway...

But of course when the team has a better record next year - and I'll say drastically better record - even though it loses its two leading scorers and best big man at MU in 20 years...the same 5 posters here won't concede that the primary and virtually only reason we were so bad last year was due to the PG.

But, of course, if we'd have played Dawson those 30 minutes per game...things sure would have been worse...like worse than 9-9 in Big East, and no wins over Top 25 teams...yeah.....whatever...and for what it's worth, Lenny needs a course in remedial math as his stats he cited are totally miscalculated...and this past season was far and away Buzz's worst team in Offensive Efficiency/O Rating...he all of a sudden didn't forget how to coach offense...he just insisted on trotting out a guy at the most important position on the floor who had ZERO offensive ability and would not take a shot outside of 3' from the basket.

Ners, why do you love pounding on Derrick.  I am sure he is acutely aware of his stats, etc. from last year.  So are we.

Derrick is an outstanding human being.  A great representative for MU.  I doubt, no, I know you would be most apologetic to Derrick if you ever met him.

Yes, we understand your point on his performance last year.  Ad naseum.

Let's move on.  You up for that Ners?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

There isn't any hyperbole about it TAMU.  Go find 1 other starting PG who got 975 minutes (30.3 minutes per game) a season who turned in worse offensive numbers than Derrick in the last 20 years.  Good luck. May be possible to find a guy who played 30 minutes a game at the PG and averaged 5ppg, yet I doubt you'll find one that shot 7% from 3 point line, and made exactly ONE three point shot for the year, and shot worse than 43% from the FT Line.  Derrick simply did not need to be guarded within 5' feet on the perimeter....it was a joke...I've never seen anything like it before in 25 years of high major college basketball at the PG position.

I already found you one that averaged 1.8 ppg with worse free throw shooting, 1 more three, and much worse defense. I'd take Derrick Wilson over Tom Maayan every day of the week.

And you are taking it out of context. Derrick plays on a high major team where at any given time, he is the fifth scoring option. You put him on a mid or low major team and suddenly he's a fourth, third, second, or even first scoring option. His role changes and he scores more points. Derrick is better than most D1 PGs at most things. Just not shooting. I'd take Derrick Wilson over most low major and a lot of mid major PGs.

Again, not saying he's good. Just counteracting your use of hyperbole. Because when you use it incorrectly, you go from discussion about basketball to blasting a 21 year old kid.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Here's the lame argument the same 5 or so posters here try to make regarding Derrick - "Buzz didn't have a better option, and he sees the guys for 6 months in practice and surely knows the team best."  Here's my rebuttal, that they still won't answer:

Was Jake a better player than Todd?  (Why did Jake start and get more minutes?)

Is there anything Juan Anderson does better on a court than Deonte Burton?  (Yet why did Juan start and play more minutes than Burton?)

Why was Davante Gardner not played 32 minutes per game, every game/not started?

Buzz had better options...he just didn't play them.  He gave his two most limited talented players the most minutes, while limiting his most talented guys minutes.  What other head coach brings his two leading scorers off the bench??? (And doesn't max their minutes?!)

1. Jake didn't start over Todd. They both got starters minutes. Who starts doesn't matter. It's who gets the minutes.
2. Jake was the only legitimate three point threat on the team. You take him out and the defense collapses on the paint even more. You need him to have max minutes on a team that had as much trouble shooting as we did. He was our poor man's Brady Heslip.
3. Juan played better defense than Burton for the half of the season, which HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE a Buzz Williams requirement for playing time. When Juan started to fade and Burton started to shine, Burton did get more minutes than Juan.
4. Because Davante is a nearly 300 lb C who has little to no D. Sometimes you need to play your 6"11 shot blocker.
5. Neither of the top scorers got bench player minutes. It's not about who starts, it's about who gets minutes.

Again, not saying they were the right calls. But they were calls made with strategy in mind. The very same strategy that Buzz used in previous season to make 2 sweet 16s and an elite 8. You make it sound like Buzz was part of some conspiracy to make Marquette fail. He wasn't. He kept coaching the way he had always coached. It didn't work last season. It worked the previous 5. We didn't have a problem with it because we were winning.

It is possible for two people to come to different conclusions about the same basketball situation. Accept that and move on!

[GGGG]

nm

[keefe]

Shula -- changed quarterbacks

Tom Matte

[willie warrior]

It is simply amazing that we had the worst season in about a dozen years with a PG that has obvious flaws, not being able to shoot from the field or the line, and not being the great defender a few hyped him to be, and we still have slurpers defending the gamechanger and the phony downhome lonesome cowboy decisions for that season.

[NersEllenson]

I already found you one that averaged 1.8 ppg with worse free throw shooting, 1 more three, and much worse defense. I'd take Derrick Wilson over Tom Maayan every day of the week.

And you are taking it out of context. Derrick plays on a high major team where at any given time, he is the fifth scoring option. You put him on a mid or low major team and suddenly he's a fourth, third, second, or even first scoring option. His role changes and he scores more points. Derrick is better than most D1 PGs at most things. Just not shooting. I'd take Derrick Wilson over most low major and a lot of mid major PGs.

Again, not saying he's good. Just counteracting your use of hyperbole. Because when you use it incorrectly, you go from discussion about basketball to blasting a 21 year old kid.

A guy who can't shoot the basketball isn't going to be a 1st, 2nd or 3rd scoring option on a low major team...And, there are MANY PGs on high major teams who are scoring options..and frequently first and 2nd scoring options - Napier and Harrison come to mind.

And as for your example...of Tom Maayan (a freshman) (the guy who in your post you mentioned because you recalled Seton Hall having an AWFUL PG) - the guy only started 17 games, averaged 21 minutes per game - nowhere near what Derrick got.....my whole problem is you and the 5 others who are SO incredibly convinced that we didn't have a better option on the roster...you acknowledge Tom Maayan was awful...and he was...so was Derrick...it wasn't going to be this major fall off if Dawson was given 20 minutes a night consistently...and it very likely would have made the team better.

[NersEllenson]

But Jay Bee ... we weren't winning with Derrick. So again, let's try something different. Change for the sake of change. Some of the greatest coaches in NFL history -- Shula, Noll, Landry, Allen -- changed quarterbacks "just because." Some of the greatest hockey coaches ever changed goalies "just because."

When things are working, great. When they aren't, you can't just keep trying the same thing over and over and over.

I don't know for certain that Dawson would have been better than Derrick, but I would have been willing to give it a shot more than once or twice all season. Not because I think Dawson is a godsend but because I knew Derrick wasn't!

Perfectly stated...and I can agree with everything written here...including Dawson very well may not be a godsend...but...what we were getting from Derrick at PG wasn't going to win games...and that proved itself out to a stunning degree...missing the NIT for God sakes...

[ATL MU Warrior]

But Jay Bee ... we weren't winning with Derrick. So again, let's try something different. Change for the sake of change. Some of the greatest coaches in NFL history -- Shula, Noll, Landry, Allen -- changed quarterbacks "just because." Some of the greatest hockey coaches ever changed goalies "just because."

When things are working, great. When they aren't, you can't just keep trying the same thing over and over and over.

I don't know for certain that Dawson would have been better than Derrick, but I would have been willing to give it a shot more than once or twice all season. Not because I think Dawson is a godsend but because I knew Derrick wasn't!

It's not like we were routinely getting blown out.  We were in most of the games we ended up losing until the very end.

In my mind that doesn't call for a drastic change from a veteran (albeit limited) PG to a rookie who's had as many (maybe more) poor performances as good ones. 

It does, however, confirm the fact that as a TEAM, Marquette just wasn't that good.  For a lot of reasons.  PG play being one of them. 

[GGGG]

Good coaches don't simply "change for the sake of change."  They change because they have a decent idea that the change will bring about better results.  Buzz didn't think so.

[GGGG]

Perfectly stated...and I can agree with everything written here...including Dawson very well may not be a godsend...but...what we were getting from Derrick at PG wasn't going to win games...and that proved itself out to a stunning degree...missing the NIT for God sakes...

OK...so your opinion has evolved from Dawson being by far the better option...to "well hell, we might as well have tried it."

[The Equalizer]

It's not like we were routinely getting blown out.  We were in most of the games we ended up losing until the very end.

In my mind that doesn't call for a drastic change from a veteran (albeit limited) PG to a rookie who's had as many (maybe more) poor performances as good ones. 

It does, however, confirm the fact that as a TEAM, Marquette just wasn't that good.  For a lot of reasons.  PG play being one of them. 

In games we weren't getting blown out (and, BTW, there were plenty of those), the point is that we were still losing at the very end.

And one can make the argument that the reason we lost those close games was specifically becuase of our PG position. We had in our PG a player who was not a scoring threat, which meant our opponents had an easier time keeping us from scoring.  

In those close games we generally only needed one or two more scores than the other team.  But we routinely failed to get those scores at least in part becuase our opponents' defense was able to concentrate its efforts on the other four players on the court.

There may have been other problems with the "TEAM" as well.  Those other problems don't negate that we had a specific one at the point, nor does raising them negate the argument that playing Dawson more may have helped us win some of those close games (and maybe helped us avoid some of the others from turning into blowouts.

[MU82]

Good coaches don't simply "change for the sake of change."  They change because they have a decent idea that the change will bring about better results.  Buzz didn't think so.

This is wrong.

Many of the best coaches in hockey history would change goalies with their team losing, say, 3-0 after one period. Later, they'd say something like: "It wasn't Goalie X's fault. I just wanted to do something to get the team going."

In 1972, Bob Griese got hurt in the 5th game and Earl Morrall replaced him for the rest of the season. The Dolphins went undefeated and Morrall was named AFC Player of the Year. The Dolphins then won their first playoff game. In the AFC title game against Pittsburgh, the Dolphins and Steelers were tied 7-7 at halftime but Shula didn't think his team was playing very well. So he benched Morrall for Griese, who still wasn't 100% but was able to play. The Dolphins went on to win that game and the Super Bowl.

So there you had the winningest coach in football history benching the conference player of the year for a guy who wasn't even totally healthy. And the Dolphins weren't even losing at halftime! Why? "Because we needed a spark," Shula said.

And those are just a couple examples. Some of the all-time great coaches have done "change for the sake of change." It isn't even rare.

Great coaches know that if something isn't working, you try something else. Great business leaders, educators and athletes know the same thing.

[NersEllenson]

It's not like we were routinely getting blown out.  We were in most of the games we ended up losing until the very end.

In my mind that doesn't call for a drastic change from a veteran (albeit limited) PG to a rookie who's had as many (maybe more) poor performances as good ones. 

It does, however, confirm the fact that as a TEAM, Marquette just wasn't that good.  For a lot of reasons.  PG play being one of them. 

Yes....and think if our PG could have just been an average scorer in the Big East at the position - 12.2ppg was the average of Big East PGs...7.1 more ppg from the position from Derrick would have won us a lot more games.  What isn't debatable is that one PG is clearly a better 3 point and FT shooter than the other, (and was a threat to shoot from everywhere on the floor) and needs to be defended everywhere on the court, thus making life easier for his teammates through that alone.  Derrick left roughly 35 points at the Free Throw line that an 80% shooter would have scored...those would have meant a lot in those close games you cite.

Buzz blew it last year.  Period.  End of story. Awful coaching all around.  Jake Thomas starting and playing more 7 more minutes per game than Todd Mayo?  Deonte Burton only getting 12 minutes per game - or 7 less per game than the next least used freshman on All Big East team?  Gardner not getting 32 minutes per game. 

[NersEllenson]

OK...so your opinion has evolved from Dawson being by far the better option...to "well hell, we might as well have tried it."

My primary position all along is that it CERTAINLY WOUDN'T HAVE GOTTEN WORSE with Dawson getting 30 minutes per game, and likely would have gotten better.  Sadly, Buzz only gave us 1 game where Dawson was given 30 minutes (the outlier in his usage), and guess what....you got an "outlier" as some of you like to refer to the performance.  That GTown game alone should have earned him 20 minutes a game moving forward.  Period.

[GGGG]

This is wrong.

Many of the best coaches in hockey history would change goalies with their team losing, say, 3-0 after one period. Later, they'd say something like: "It wasn't Goalie X's fault. I just wanted to do something to get the team going."

In 1972, Bob Griese got hurt in the 5th game and Earl Morrall replaced him for the rest of the season. The Dolphins went undefeated and Morrall was named AFC Player of the Year. The Dolphins then won their first playoff game. In the AFC title game against Pittsburgh, the Dolphins and Steelers were tied 7-7 at halftime but Shula didn't think his team was playing very well. So he benched Morrall for Griese, who still wasn't 100% but was able to play. The Dolphins went on to win that game and the Super Bowl.

So there you had the winningest coach in football history benching the conference player of the year for a guy who wasn't even totally healthy. And the Dolphins weren't even losing at halftime! Why? "Because we needed a spark," Shula said.

And those are just a couple examples. Some of the all-time great coaches have done "change for the sake of change." It isn't even rare.

Great coaches know that if something isn't working, you try something else. Great business leaders, educators and athletes know the same thing.

Those aren't examples of  "change for the sake of change."  

Those are example of a coach having what he feels are legitimate options available.

[GGGG]

My primary position all along is that it CERTAINLY WOUDN'T HAVE GOTTEN WORSE with Dawson getting 30 minutes per game, and likely would have gotten better.  Sadly, Buzz only gave us 1 game where Dawson was given 30 minutes (the outlier in his usage), and guess what....you got an "outlier" as some of you like to refer to the performance.  That GTown game alone should have earned him 20 minutes a game moving forward.  Period.

Only fools base their opinions on outliers. 

[MU82]

Those aren't examples of  "change for the sake of change."  

Those are example of a coach having what he feels are legitimate options available.

Well, the Griese-Morrall thing certainly is what you say. I should be tarred and feathered for comparing either of those two to Derrick Wilson and John Dawson!

But the hockey goalie situation is an excellent analogy. For most NHL teams, one goalie is considered far superior to the other and gets the vast majority of playing time. But coaches will still go to their backup -- often an unproven guy, sometimes just called up from the minors -- just to change for the sake of change. Almost always the coaches don't blame the goalie who was benched; they say they just wanted to shake things up.

Buzz did exactly that in the Georgetown game -- benched someone he felt was proven just to shake things up. Most importantly, he stayed with the kid longer than the usual 2-3 minutes, and it worked wonderfully. Buzz didn't all of a sudden have unshakable confidence in Dawson; he did change for the sake of change and it worked. I'm surprised he didn't try something like that more often, though he did finally relent with Mayo and Burton.

And please remember, I spent most of the season as a Buzz defender and I'm far from convinced that Dawson is a legit D1 PG. I'm thrilled Wojo went out and got Carlino, and I'm hoping Duane is the goods.

I will know we are a better team if Derrick can go back to the role he played as a freshman and soph. Just as it would have been a sign we were a good team last year if Jake didn't play much.