ESPN: MU-OSU blurb

[Windyplayer]

Indeed.

I'm not ready to admit that Derrick Wilson is a high-major-caliber PG after watching him for two years, so I sure as heck am not ready to anoint John Dawson after two games.

Wilson has given you nothing to even ponder that he is. At least Dawson has exhibited flashes of an ability to run the point.

[GGGG]

Wilson has given you nothing to even ponder that he is. At least Dawson has exhibited flashes of an ability to run the point.

That is simply an inaccurate statement.  Wilson has done more than Dawson has.  Dawson may show you more potential, but let's not exaggerate his accomplishments to date.

[PGsHeroes32]

That is simply an inaccurate statement.  Wilson has done more than Dawson has.  Dawson may show you more potential, but let's not exaggerate his accomplishments to date.

Care to go more in depth?

[MerrittsMustache]

Wilson has given you nothing to even ponder that he is. At least Dawson has exhibited flashes of an ability to run the point.

Based on Dawson's "flashes" in a game that was 80% garbage time against the worst team in D1, you're ready to hand the reins over to him? At the same time, you were underwhelmed with Derrick's 10 assists and 1 TO in that same game.

Is that accurate?

[GGGG]

Care to go more in depth?

Sure.  De Wilson has played against high level D1 competition previously.  He hasn't been great, but has has been fine.  Dawson has yet to do that.

Even in the first two games, I think Wilson has looked better.  Statistically he was better against Grambling than Dawson was.  But again, that's crap competition.

All I get is stuff like "he looks the part" or "he has more potential."  That's all fine and dandy, but don't exaggerate what Dawson has accomplished vis-a-vis Wilson.

[NersEllenson]

Sure.  De Wilson has played against high level D1 competition previously.  He hasn't been great, but has has been fine.  Dawson has yet to do that.

Even in the first two games, I think Wilson has looked better.  Statistically he was better against Grambling than Dawson was.  But again, that's crap competition.

All I get is stuff like "he looks the part" or "he has more potential."  That's all fine and dandy, but don't exaggerate what Dawson has accomplished vis-a-vis Wilson.

Well all we have to go off of is 2 games for Dawson, and over 2 years of footage on Derrick.  Let's also not get excited about his 10 assists in garbage time against Grambling - It was funny to note - Derrick played a lot more aggressively after watching Dawson come in the game for his first stint and make things happen.

Dawson flashed more in his 20 minutes against Grambling than has Derrick at any point in his 2 year career.  Dawson played more confidently, and simply sees the floor better.  Derrick should be the better defender of the two after being in the program 2+ years, and is a solid ball protecting point guard.  Dawson can be a game changer, Derrick a game manager.  And that's not a bad tag team to have at the point position...

[Windyplayer]

That is simply an inaccurate statement.  Wilson has done more than Dawson has.  Dawson may show you more potential, but let's not exaggerate his accomplishments to date.

I said nothing about accomplishments. Only that he looks a lot more fluid at the point then Wilson ever has ever been including these first two games. The 10 assists are nice, but what ultimately matters is how you run the point. It's not about individual stat lines for point guards, it's about how the point guard orchestrates the offense. You can't deny that you've seen more from Dawson in that department than Wilson in the first two games. Keep in mind that Wilson played against this competition, too, so the comparisons are just.  

[GGGG]

I said nothing about accomplishments. Only that he looks a lot more fluid at the point then Wilson ever has ever been including these first two games. The 10 assists are nice, but what ultimately matters is how you run the point. It's not about individual stat lines for point guards, it's about how the point guard orchestrates the offense. You can't deny that you've seen more from Dawson in that department than Wilson in the first two games. Keep in mind that Wilson played against this competition, too, so the comparisons are just.  

I most certainly can deny that.  Seriously, how can you say that you have "seen more" from Dawson...yet you say "nothing about accomplishments?"  That makes no sense.

If you want to say Dawson has more potential, that's fine.  But how on earth can you say you've "seen more?"

[GGGG]

Dawson flashed more in his 20 minutes against Grambling than has Derrick at any point in his 2 year career.  Dawson played more confidently, and simply sees the floor better.  Derrick should be the better defender of the two after being in the program 2+ years, and is a solid ball protecting point guard.  Dawson can be a game changer, Derrick a game manager.  And that's not a bad tag team to have at the point position...

Bad basketball cliche count....5.  In four sentences.  Impressive!

[Windyplayer]

I most certainly can deny that.  Seriously, how can you say that you have "seen more" from Dawson...yet you say "nothing about accomplishments?"  That makes no sense.

If you want to say Dawson has more potential, that's fine.  But how on earth can you say you've "seen more?"

Sure, you can deny that the world is round as well.

[Windyplayer]

I most certainly can deny that.  Seriously, how can you say that you have "seen more" from Dawson...yet you say "nothing about accomplishments?"  That makes no sense.

If you want to say Dawson has more potential, that's fine.  But how on earth can you say you've "seen more?"

Because, I've NEVER seen Wilson do what Dawson has done in the first couple of games. It's that simple. I don't know if Dawson can sustain it, but that's the truth.

[GGGG]

Because, I've NEVER seen Wilson do what Dawson has done in the first couple of games. It's that simple. I don't know if Dawson can sustain it, but that's the truth.

SEEN WHAT??!!!?? 

And don't give me hey-i'm-a-basketball-scout-type cliches.  Tell me what he has actually done, that Wilson hasn't.  Because that is all that really matters.

And for the third time, I don't have a problem with the notion that Dawson could potentially be a better player.  But don't exaggerate the performance and then say you have "seen more."  That's silly.

[keefe]

I most certainly can deny that.  Seriously, how can you say that you have "seen more" from Dawson...yet you say "nothing about accomplishments?"  That makes no sense.

If you want to say Dawson has more potential, that's fine.  But how on earth can you say you've "seen more?"

Please state Wilson's accomplishments. Be specific.

[Windyplayer]

SEEN WHAT??!!!?? 

And don't give me hey-i'm-a-basketball-scout-type cliches.  Tell me what he has actually done, that Wilson hasn't.  Because that is all that really matters.

And for the third time, I don't have a problem with the notion that Dawson could potentially be a better player.  But don't exaggerate the performance and then say you have "seen more."  That's silly.

Why can't I say that I've seen more. The offense has looked more fluid with Dawson in the game. Why can't I opine on that? It's only two games so I'm not exaggerating by only saying "seen more," which apparently you're misconstruing as some broad proclamation. And why do you think Dawson can be potentially better? Is it because you "saw somthing" in the first two games. It's OK to admit it, it feels good.

[statnik]

I most certainly can deny that.  Seriously, how can you say that you have "seen more" from Dawson...yet you say "nothing about accomplishments?"  That makes no sense.

If you want to say Dawson has more potential, that's fine.  But how on earth can you say you've "seen more?"

Notice that he said we have seen more in the first two games.

[GGGG]

Please state Wilson's accomplishments. Be specific.

More assists.  Less turnovers. 

[GGGG]

Why can't I say that I've seen more. The offense has looked more fluid with Dawson in the game. Why can't I opine on that? It's only two games so I'm not exaggerating by only saying "seen more," which apparently you're misconstruing as some broad proclamation. And why do you think Dawson can be potentially better? Is it because you "saw somthing" in the first two games. It's OK to admit it, it feels good.

I guess you couldn't do it without cliches.

And I never said that Dawson had more potential.  I said that it wouldn't bother me if someone said that.  Just base it in reality...not on stuff like the offense is "more fluid."  I for one wait to see what they do against decent competition before making such proclamations. 

[Windyplayer]

I guess you couldn't do it without cliches.

And I never said that Dawson had more potential.  I said that it wouldn't bother me if someone said that.  Just base it in reality...not on stuff like the offense is "more fluid."  I for one wait to see what they do against decent competition before making such proclamations. 

Sorry I can't quantify everything for you and wrap it in a nice bow, and that you're obsessed with referring to everyone's arguments as cliches (you know why they call them cliches, right). And, hmm, you want to wait for decent competition before making "such proclamations" yet Wilson is more "accomplished" at this point due to his assist/turnover ratio? Your best bet is to just stay neutral with your line of logic.

[MerrittsMustache]

I guess you couldn't do it without cliches.

And I never said that Dawson had more potential.  I said that it wouldn't bother me if someone said that.  Just base it in reality...not on stuff like the offense is "more fluid."  I for one wait to see what they do against decent competition before making such proclamations.  

Dawson is taller and appears to be more athletic than Derrick. He also made 2 really nice passes against an awful team. What else is there to see?

[Windyplayer]

Dawson is taller and appears to be more athletic than Derrick. He also made 2 really nice passes against an awful team. What else is there to see?

Sigh.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Is this simply a case of people WANTING to see that Dawson is better?

I mean, I would LOVE if JD was like Magic Johnson. I would LOVE if he was significantly better than DW.

I'm not sure that 2 games against bad opponents have told me that.

Call me conservative, but I'd like to see him some more.

Another example: Deonte Burton was physically unstoppable against Grambling. I assume as the competition gets better, he won't be able to physically dominate. He's have to be more patient, pick his spots, and he'll probably be less effective.

Same goes for Dawson.

[ErickJD08]

If we win tomorrow, it will because Gardner and Otule have great games, our PGs don't turn the ball over like crazy, and we hit some timely threes.  And we are one dimensional.  No one on this roster showed that can consistently hit jumpers or create off the dribble and we don't have a suffocating defense that will create alot of fast breaks.  We do have proven post players.  That sounds pretty one dimensional to me.  Maybe we will see something tomorrow that will show we can score in a number of ways consistently.

[damuts222]

Is this simply a case of people WANTING to see that Dawson is better?

 I think its simply that people want more out of the point guard position and are hoping that someone else shows flashes or takes the reins from Derrick.  Duane Wilson was supposed to compete with Derrick for the starting pg role.  Derrick is consistent and you know what you are going to get with him.  

 The fact that Derrick still can't shoot doesn't bode well.  Do you want your point guard, the guy who brings the ball up the court every possession, to not be able to create for others?  How can you create for others when you can't shoot?  Dribble penetration...but Derrick is to short when he gets down low..etc. etc.  Derrick works hard but if he can't make a basket and continues to let quicker guards get around him Buzz may have a short leash for him once he has Duane back in the fold.

[Windyplayer]

Is this simply a case of people WANTING to see that Dawson is better?

I mean, I would LOVE if JD was like Magic Johnson. I would LOVE if he was significantly better than DW.

I'm not sure that 2 games against bad opponents have told me that.

Call me conservative, but I'd like to see him some more.

Another example: Deonte Burton was physically unstoppable against Grambling. I assume as the competition gets better, he won't be able to physically dominate. He's have to be more patient, pick his spots, and he'll probably be less effective.

Same goes for Dawson.

We absolutely need to see more, no question. But JD and DW played in the exact two games, and based on that small sample size, I feel better about JD for this fleeting moment. But you would be foolish to proclaim that JD is better suited for the position moving forward, period.

[MisterJaylenBrownMU]

I think D.Will has been just fine.  Kind of reminds me back when Cubillian and Acker were running the offense and some people on here had a collective aneurysm.  We don't need points out of our PG, we just need someone that'll distribute the ball without turning it over.

In DWill's first year, in extremely limited minutes, he had almost a 4:1 Assist/Turnover ratio.  His second year, in limited minutes, he had a better than 3:1 Assist/Turnover ratio.  This year, with higher minutes, he's actually attempting less shots than last year.  And he's got a better than 4:1 Assist/Turnover ratio.  The .5 ppg isn't sparking, and the 25% FT% is pretty brutal, but as a director for the other 4 scorers, he's done what he's supposed to do: put people in the right places on the court and give them the ball without giving it to the other team.  

And Dawson's been fine, too.  His FT% is also 25%, so that isn't great.  And his TOs are a little high.  But I guess I don't see the statistical reason to use him over DW.  Sort of bizarre after a 10-1 Assist/TO game.