Buzz has got to learn....

[willie warrior]

I have had the opportunity to speak to Buzz on multiple occasions. He is definitely stubborn. However, he is one of the most genuine and win hungry men I have ever meant. Buzz desires character and winning above all else. I can't believe for a second that Buzz would lose a single game just to prove a point.

Well, start imagining it because it looks like it happened this year. Why the hell was Derrick in the game at the end against Providence? For Defense? Nope, he had 4 fouls and committed the gamechanging loser foul on Cotton? For FT shooting? Nope, he was 1-4 that game and is at 45% for the year. To show that his taveling TO was a mistake? Don't see it. Oh I get it, to inbound the ball to Jake. Several others could have done that--dawson, Otule, JJJ.

[willie warrior]

Let me boil this down to what I think you are saying.  Buzz made a mistake in believing the Derrick Wilson was the point guard for this season.  When proven that Derrick wasn't, Buzz decided to ignore that evidence.  What's more he has actively lied to media and the fanbase in explaining his decisions.  He also chose to lose games rather than "admit" an mistake.

Is there anything in accurate in this statement?  If not, if you truly believes this, are you not calling for his firing?  If I believed this was even remotely true I would call for his immediate dismissal. 

No there is nothing accurate in your statement.
OK--your premise states that we have lost games because of Derrick. You should agree to that. So why does he keep playing him in such situations as Providence end of game? Maybe to prove a point that Derrick is his man. Not saying to deliberately lose the game, but hoping that he will finally come through and win one. That is where the stubbornness comes in, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of what Derrick is--a good kid with marginal talent. Sorry if you cannot see this, but the rest of what you said, putting what you think I am saying is just your opinion. No more valuable or less valuable than my opinion. The guy asked me what I believed--I responded. And I have responded to you--nothing accurate in you statement. And by the way, I have posted on numerous occasions of Buzz's misleading and untrue statements, so I am not going over those again. You just do not want to consider any of this because it is contrary to your beliefs. Buzz's stubborn loyalty to Derrick has cost us games this year--not because he deliberately wanted to lose, but because he hoped that Derrick would come through--to defend his position. If you have never met people like that, sorry--they are out there. the stubborn loyalty trumps the objectivity.
And guess what? There are others that believe similarly, and have said so on this board.

[mu03eng]

No there is nothing accurate in your statement.
OK--your premise states that we have lost games because of Derrick. You should agree to that. So why does he keep playing him in such situations as Providence end of game? Maybe to prove a point that Derrick is his man. Not saying to deliberately lose the game, but hoping that he will finally come through and win one. That is where the stubbornness comes in, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of what Derrick is--a good kid with marginal talent. Sorry if you cannot see this, but the rest of what you said, putting what you think I am saying is just your opinion. No more valuable or less valuable than my opinion. The guy asked me what I believed--I responded. And I have responded to you--nothing accurate in you statement. And by the way, I have posted on numerous occasions of Buzz's misleading and untrue statements, so I am not going over those again. You just do not want to consider any of this because it is contrary to your beliefs. Buzz's stubborn loyalty to Derrick has cost us games this year--not because he deliberately wanted to lose, but because he hoped that Derrick would come through--to defend his position. If you have never met people like that, sorry--they are out there. the stubborn loyalty trumps the objectivity.
And guess what? There are others that believe similarly, and have said so on this board.

I've definitely "met" someone who's stubbornness trumps their objectivity......perhaps a mirror would be useful for you.

My post to you was never, ever about defending Wilson.  My post was simply about you saying that Buzz has lied about why he plays Derrick.  You have also stated that he makes untrue and misleading statements....these are grounds for termination.  You don't seem to want to go there, why not?

You have no idea what my beliefs are and what I want to believe.  You also assume I am rejecting your premise that Derrick Wilson was an issue for this team, I believe he was an issue.  However, I don't believe that Buzz intentionally ran him out there even though he was clearly not the answer.  If that was true, at best he was hoping he would play better and was risking an entire season on hope, and at worst he was so insecure as to ignore the evidence to "prove a point".

I really should give up, but I'm bound and determined to get a rational opinion from you on this because your current position is so illogical and incongruant as to defy explanation.

[willie warrior]

I've definitely "met" someone who's stubbornness trumps their objectivity......perhaps a mirror would be useful for you.

My post to you was never, ever about defending Wilson.  My post was simply about you saying that Buzz has lied about why he plays Derrick.  You have also stated that he makes untrue and misleading statements....these are grounds for termination.  You don't seem to want to go there, why not?

You have no idea what my beliefs are and what I want to believe.  You also assume I am rejecting your premise that Derrick Wilson was an issue for this team, I believe he was an issue.  However, I don't believe that Buzz intentionally ran him out there even though he was clearly not the answer.  If that was true, at best he was hoping he would play better and was risking an entire season on hope, and at worst he was so insecure as to ignore the evidence to "prove a point".

I really should give up, but I'm bound and determined to get a rational opinion from you on this because your current position is so illogical and incongruant as to defy explanation.

My position is not illogical just because you think so.Just explained it you, sorry you do not get it. Two examples of Buzz: Derrick is a gamechanger and the best defensive player he has  ever coached. Both untrue. Derrick has cost this team losses. Never said Buzz is losing on purpose, he is losing because of his stubborn loyalty to him. That is very logical. In fact, it is obvious. I give up on you so end of discussion.

[mu-rara]

What I've learned from this thread.

I wish I had the time back it took to read it

Buzz would rather PO a few chuckleheads on an internet board than win ballgames

Got it.

[akmarq]

I've definitely "met" someone who's stubbornness trumps their objectivity......perhaps a mirror would be useful for you.

My post to you was never, ever about defending Wilson.  My post was simply about you saying that Buzz has lied about why he plays Derrick.  You have also stated that he makes untrue and misleading statements....these are grounds for termination.  You don't seem to want to go there, why not?

You have no idea what my beliefs are and what I want to believe.  You also assume I am rejecting your premise that Derrick Wilson was an issue for this team, I believe he was an issue.  However, I don't believe that Buzz intentionally ran him out there even though he was clearly not the answer.  If that was true, at best he was hoping he would play better and was risking an entire season on hope, and at worst he was so insecure as to ignore the evidence to "prove a point".

I really should give up, but I'm bound and determined to get a rational opinion from you on this because your current position is so illogical and incongruant as to defy explanation.

I've come to the conclusion that willie is just an AI program designed to craft responses as the collective consciousness of the JSonline comments section. Could the mods please direct that account's email to the folks responsible for the Turing prize?

[mu03eng]

I've come to the conclusion that willie is just an AI program designed to craft responses as the collective consciousness of the JSonline comments section. Could the mods please direct that account's email to the folks responsible for the Turing prize?

Completely agree, and I've finally gotten to the point where I have someone on ignore....banner day for me

[Big Papi]

I disagree with the great defense comment. Cotton goes for 25 which is above his average...how is someone scoring more than their average equal great defense? I would say solid, great would be 10 pts or less in my opinion. Heck on the basis of that stupid Hail Mary defensive coverage at the end of the game he should be automatically downgraded.

These are the comments that I find frustrating.  

You, me, every poster on this board and every single fan that watched that game has no idea what the game plan was heading into this game and what the defensive assignment was each time down the floor.  Buzz had color coded cards that he used to switch up how he wanted defend screens and he switched them up often.

None of us can determine who was ultimately responsible for any of Cotton's 25 points, other than his last 2 points.  So to say that Derrick had a great defensive game, an average defensive game or a horrible defensive game based on Cotton's points is ABSURD.  Only Buzz, the coaching staff and the players know and guess who decides playing time based on results.  Oh thats right Buzz.  I HIGHLY doubt that Buzz is going to play inferior players extended minutes of time because he likes them.  He wants to win and will play players who give him the best chance to win.  Based on playing time, it is obvious that Buzz believes Derrick running the point gives his team a better chance to win.  That does not mean that Dawson doesn't have a higher ceiling and could over take him at some point in time, it just means today, he is not there.

I personally LOVE the potential that Dawson shows.  His ability to take and hit a shot is a breath of fresh air when compared to Derrick.  He is going to be a very good player but to argue over playing time when none of us know what Buzz wants and demands is beyond silly.  

Maybe I am foolish that I will give the benefit of the doubt to a man who has coached SUCCESSFULLY at a high level over my couch potato and junior high school recreational coaching but I will push my chips in on his coaching decisions over ANYONE on this board.  That doesn't mean Buzz doesn't make mistakes.  It just means that I think he knows his team, his players, his coaching philosophy better than anyone else.

[akmarq]

Completely agree, and I've finally gotten to the point where I have someone on ignore....banner day for me

Bad move! How do you plan on remembering that reading is fundamental!?!

[Sunbelt15]

These are the comments that I find frustrating.  

You, me, every poster on this board and every single fan that watched that game has no idea what the game plan was heading into this game and what the defensive assignment was each time down the floor.  Buzz had color coded cards that he used to switch up how he wanted defend screens and he switched them up often.

None of us can determine who was ultimately responsible for any of Cotton's 25 points, other than his last 2 points.  So to say that Derrick had a great defensive game, an average defensive game or a horrible defensive game based on Cotton's points is ABSURD.  Only Buzz, the coaching staff and the players know and guess who decides playing time based on results.  Oh thats right Buzz.  I HIGHLY doubt that Buzz is going to play inferior players extended minutes of time because he likes them.  He wants to win and will play players who give him the best chance to win.  Based on playing time, it is obvious that Buzz believes Derrick running the point gives his team a better chance to win.  That does not mean that Dawson doesn't have a higher ceiling and could over take him at some point in time, it just means today, he is not there.

I personally LOVE the potential that Dawson shows.  His ability to take and hit a shot is a breath of fresh air when compared to Derrick.  He is going to be a very good player but to argue over playing time when none of us know what Buzz wants and demands is beyond silly.  

Maybe I am foolish that I will give the benefit of the doubt to a man who has coached SUCCESSFULLY at a high level over my couch potato and junior high school recreational coaching but I will push my chips in on his coaching decisions over ANYONE on this board.  That doesn't mean Buzz doesn't make mistakes.  It just means that I think he knows his team, his players, his coaching philosophy better than anyone else.

You would choose Buzz coaching over the thousands on Scoop? What if Doc Rivers was a member? I'd take that bet.

Also, it's only opinions. We don't need to know the game plan.

[muwarrior69]

I told my wife on Saturday during the Nova game that Buzz looked severely stressed out....just could see it in his face.  She laughed a bit and said he looks like you at times.  Not good for the soul or the heart.  This has been a tough year on him I am sure because he is wearing it for many to see.

For the time he has been here he has been loyal to his seniors and juniors. Every year he has had that go to guy or guys from those classes who thought if they worked really hard they just might have a chance at the next level. Not this year, which is the reason for all the frustration.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You would choose Buzz coaching over the thousands on Scoop?

Absolutely. 100% of the time. Wouldn't need a second to think about it.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Well, start imagining it because it looks like it happened this year. Why the hell was Derrick in the game at the end against Providence? For Defense? Nope, he had 4 fouls and committed the gamechanging loser foul on Cotton? For FT shooting? Nope, he was 1-4 that game and is at 45% for the year. To show that his taveling TO was a mistake? Don't see it. Oh I get it, to inbound the ball to Jake. Several others could have done that--dawson, Otule, JJJ.

Defense. Maybe he's thinking "Gee, when Derrick is guarding Cotton (one of the best scorers in the country) he is 2-11 from the floor. When John is guarding Cotton he is 3-5 from the floor. Maybe I should play Derrick in case we need defense."

The call ended up not working because Jake got tied up, the ref didn't call the foul, and then Derrick made a dumb foul. None of those are things that Buzz could forsee.

Personally, I would have had Jamil in bound the ball and have Dawson in as another FT shooter. Then sub in Derrick after the free throws that probably would have been coming. But Buzz saw it differently. Either call could have worked great or terribly. As a coach you do the best with the information you have. Sometimes you will be wrong. But the doesn't mean you made a bad decision.

[MU82]

Either call could have worked great or terribly. As a coach you do the best with the information you have. Sometimes you will be wrong. But the doesn't mean you made a bad decision.

Well, coaching is a bottom-line business. If your call works, you made the right decision. If it doesn't, you made the wrong decision. The buck has to stop at the coach, and he gets paid handsomely to have the buck stop at him.

I'm a huge Buzz fan, but he's not flawless. He makes plenty of bad decisions -- as do Coach K, Roy Williams and Bill Self. Thankfully, he makes far more good decisions; if he didn't, he never would have gotten this far in coaching. Only a total drooling moron would look at Buzz's body of work and say he should be fired for what has happened this season.

Still, as fans, we do have the right to criticize his poor decisions, especially when the right decisions were fairly obvious. It's not second-guessing when you see them line up and you turn to your friend and say, "Derrick shouldn't be in this game!" And then the ball goes to Jake and the defense is swarming him and you're screaming at the TV: "You have 2 time outs. Use one!"

And I know I'm not the only one who "first-guessed" like that.

Buzz had two decisions to make there (personnel; time-out management), and he messed up both. As much as I love the guy, I have the right to say that.

Had it worked out fine and MU won, the decisions wouldn't have been wrong ... and that's life as a coach.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Well, coaching is a bottom-line business. If your call works, you made the right decision. If it doesn't, you made the wrong decision. The buck has to stop at the coach, and he gets paid handsomely to have the buck stop at him.

I'm a huge Buzz fan, but he's not flawless. He makes plenty of bad decisions -- as do Coach K, Roy Williams and Bill Self. Thankfully, he makes far more good decisions; if he didn't, he never would have gotten this far in coaching. Only a total drooling moron would look at Buzz's body of work and say he should be fired for what has happened this season.

Still, as fans, we do have the right to criticize his poor decisions, especially when the right decisions were fairly obvious. It's not second-guessing when you see them line up and you turn to your friend and say, "Derrick shouldn't be in this game!" And then the ball goes to Jake and the defense is swarming him and you're screaming at the TV: "You have 2 time outs. Use one!"

And I know I'm not the only one who "first-guessed" like that.

Buzz had two decisions to make there (personnel; time-out management), and he messed up both. As much as I love the guy, I have the right to say that.

Had it worked out fine and MU won, the decisions wouldn't have been wrong ... and that's life as a coach.

You are right. He made the wrong decision because it didn't work out. That's the nature of the business. The point I was trying to make is that at the time, with the information he had, he had two options at PG. Both options had their strengths, both had their weaknesses. He made a call that was completely legitimate. If we win, it is the right call. Because we lost, it was the wrong call.

The time out was another thing entirely. You get tied up in that situation, you call a time out. Does anyone know if he attempted to call time out and the ref just didn't give it to him?

[Big Papi]

The time out was another thing entirely. You get tied up in that situation, you call a time out. Does anyone know if he attempted to call time out and the ref just didn't give it to him?

The tie up happened so fast there was no chance of getting a timeout called or granted.

You inbound the ball, knowing that the defenders are going to swarm towards the ball and you anticipate a foul is going to be called as most of the time it is.  By the time anyone realized that Cotton had his hands on the ball it was too late to call a timeout, and a tie up was called.  So I find it hard to believe anyone was screaming at the tv begging for a timeout to be called before it was already too late.

As far as personnel on the in-bounds play.  We could argue the merits of who and why should be in there but Buzz put in his players who have had the most overall experience and minutes of action on the season.  Those that have gone through countless of in-bounds plays.  To put in a player with limited experience in a pressure situation doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  I am going to guess, because I don't know for sure, that Derrick has in-bounded the ball on countless occasions this season and Buzz felt comfortable with Derrick in bounding the ball as he wanted him in the game but didn't want him on the floor getting fouled.  It didn't work so we criticize his thinking but frankly that is hindsight 20/20 bs.  I will say that I am not a fan of Buzz's in bounds plays.  Its seems like its always an adventure.

[brandx]

As far as personnel on the in-bounds play.  We could argue the merits of who and why should be in there but Buzz put in his players who have had the most overall experience and minutes of action on the season.  Those that have gone through countless of in-bounds plays.  To put in a player with limited experience in a pressure situation doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  I am going to guess, because I don't know for sure, that Derrick has in-bounded the ball on countless occasions this season and Buzz felt comfortable with Derrick in bounding the ball as he wanted him in the game but didn't want him on the floor getting fouled.  It didn't work so we criticize his thinking but frankly that is hindsight 20/20 bs.  I will say that I am not a fan of Buzz's in bounds plays.  Its seems like its always an adventure.

And putting in the players with the most experience has worked out how well this season?

And it is not hindsight to say that Derrick should not be on the floor anytime there is an offensive possession with a game on the line. It has been stated many times this year on this forum. Maybe we can call it foresight rather than hindsight.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

And putting in the players with the most experience has worked out how well this season?

And it is not hindsight to say that Derrick should not be on the floor anytime there is an offensive possession with a game on the line. It has been stated many times this year on this forum. Maybe we can call it foresight rather than hindsight.

I think that is the exact reason Derrick inbounded the ball. Didn't want to let the Friars play hack a Derrick.

It's not the call I would have made. I would have put Dawson, Mayo, Thomas, Jamil, and Gardner. Jamil is the worst FT shooter in that group but also a good inbounder. Give him them inbounds and he has 4 FT shooters to throw to.

Buzz made a different call. It wasn't a bad one. He thought having Derrick inbound would neutralize the hack a Derrick, keep more experience on the floor, and have a defensive player out there in case things went wrong. I just didn't work out this time.

[mattyv1908]

I think that is the exact reason Derrick inbounded the ball. Didn't want to let the Friars play hack a Derrick.

It's not the call I would have made. I would have put Dawson, Mayo, Thomas, Jamil, and Gardner. Jamil is the worst FT shooter in that group but also a good inbounder. Give him them inbounds and he has 4 FT shooters to throw to.

Buzz made a different call. It wasn't a bad one. He thought having Derrick inbound would neutralize the hack a Derrick, keep more experience on the floor, and have a defensive player out there in case things went wrong. I just didn't work out this time.

TAMU, I think the correct five on the floor for that situation should have been as follows:

INBOUNDER:  Juan Anderson - he's long enough if you put a defender on him to still get a pass off and he's a 71% FT shooter on the season.

REMAINING PLAYERS:  Mayo, Thomas, J Wilson and Gardner with my initial look trying to get Todd the ball as he's our best ball handler in those situations.  If Mayo catches the inbounds pass there's virtually no way he doesn't get fouled.  I'd have a Jamil scree for him and be an outlet with Gardner as your secondary read around half court towards the sideline with Thomas opposite him on the court to successfully cross half court with a good pass to beat the press/foul attempts.

[Class71]

Help me out. If an offensive oriented player with good shot selection scores considerably more than a defensive player why is the defensive player held in such high esteem and not the offensive player?  It seems like a simple concept that it is the sum of both offensive and defensive skills that should be considered but on this team we it appears we only value defense. Remember how long it took for Devonte to get playing minutes? Agreed he will never be a great defender but when you look at the whole picture it is a different story. In contrast Vander played good defense and got minutes early on even though he had to develop an outside shot and the ability to drive without losing the ball. With different players this story has been played many times and this year it caught up with us given the disparity in skill sets. Seriously I agree the coaching staff knows a lot more than me so what am I missing?  I am not frustrated with the Team because I think they all are contributors and are playing their hearts out. I also still think they can win the tourney but only eith the right mix of offense/defense and risk taking. I also think if you want consistent play you need play for extended minutes. Has any coach been successful when substituting every minute or two? I assume some of the experts here can highlight some examples where this has worked. If we pull someone out after every mistake or when we go from O to D what happens to their confidence?  I think playing Mayo in the second half after a weak 1st was a risk but a risk that must be taken with high energy game changers. We need to "seize the day" and not take the safe road IHMO. What do we have to lose?

[Stretchdeltsig]

Buzz is a young coach who does have a lot to learn.  It's really hard to understand how he could coach so poorly throughout this season after the success he had previously.  What happened to him?  Where was his mind?  Some of his mistakes are so obvious that it's hard to understand his logic.  It seemed that he failed to coach the players up this year and that goes for the whole team including the freshmen.  Perhaps Buzz needs better assistant coaches. 

[jesmu84]

Help me out. If an offensive oriented player with good shot selection scores considerably more than a defensive player why is the defensive player held in such high esteem and not the offensive player?  It seems like a simple concept that it is the sum of both offensive and defensive skills that should be considered but on this team we it appears we only value defense. Remember how long it took for Devonte to get playing minutes? Agreed he will never be a great defender but when you look at the whole picture it is a different story. In contrast Vander played good defense and got minutes early on even though he had to develop an outside shot and the ability to drive without losing the ball. With different players this story has been played many times and this year it caught up with us given the disparity in skill sets. Seriously I agree the coaching staff knows a lot more than me so what am I missing?  I am not frustrated with the Team because I think they all are contributors and are playing their hearts out. I also still think they can win the tourney but only eith the right mix of offense/defense and risk taking. I also think if you want consistent play you need play for extended minutes. Has any coach been successful when substituting every minute or two? I assume some of the experts here can highlight some examples where this has worked. If we pull someone out after every mistake or when we go from O to D what happens to their confidence?  I think playing Mayo in the second half after a weak 1st was a risk but a risk that must be taken with high energy game changers. We need to "seize the day" and not take the safe road IHMO. What do we have to lose?

Here's the hypothesis I'm working with:

Buzz prefers consistency (even consistently low output) over inconsistency. He prefers "safe" over risk. And he prefers the known over the unknown. He also believes he and the players have a lot more control over the defensive end than the offensive end. And, so, that's why he's playing the "better" defensive players more.

[MU82]

Buzz is a young coach who does have a lot to learn.  It's really hard to understand how he could coach so poorly throughout this season after the success he had previously.  What happened to him?  Where was his mind?  Some of his mistakes are so obvious that it's hard to understand his logic.  It seemed that he failed to coach the players up this year and that goes for the whole team including the freshmen.  Perhaps Buzz needs better assistant coaches. 

What happened to Mike Brey this year? What happened to John Calipari last year? What happened to Roy Williams in 2009-10? What happened to Jim Calhoun in 2006-07? What happened to Bobby Knight in 2005-06? What happened to Jim Boeheim in 1996-97? Shall I go on?

[Class71]

Here's the hypothesis I'm working with:

Buzz prefers consistency (even consistently low output) over inconsistency. He prefers "safe" over risk. And he prefers the known over the unknown. He also believes he and the players have a lot more control over the defensive end than the offensive end. And, so, that's why he's playing the "better" defensive players more.

Logical. Hope he tests alternatives more in the future.

[Class71]

What happened to Mike Brey this year? What happened to John Calipari last year? What happened to Roy Williams in 2009-10? What happened to Jim Calhoun in 2006-07? What happened to Bobby Knight in 2005-06? What happened to Jim Boeheim in 1996-97? Shall I go on?

Maybe you are right but I am more optimistic that some coach adjustments could be the difference for what is left of this year and next. Without testing those waters we may never know the results if we explored all the options. At this point I suggest let's take a risk since we really have nothing to lose and just possibly something to gain. At least we may have a better idea as to what the young bucks and Todd can do consistently.