Poll: Derrick Wilson minutes

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Hey Eagle--did it ever occur to you that your boy Buzz had the attitude? Probably not!

1. Yes. I acknowledged that in my post.
2. He's not my boy.
3. He's the coach. He gets to have an attitude.

[willie warrior]

1. Yes. I acknowledged that in my post.
2. He's not my boy.
3. He's the coach. He gets to have an attitude.

I am sure glad that you are the determiner of who gets to have an attitude. As a representative of a Jesuit University, he gets to have an attitude. I am sure you wrote that into his contract. Maybe it occurred to you that his attitude sent him packing, but I doubt it. And BTW, Buzz will always be your boy, in spite of your denials. Your loyalty to the phony downhome lonesome cowboy is admirable. May the parables be written about that loyalty.

[JakeBarnes]

I am sure glad that you are the determiner of who gets to have an attitude. As a representative of a Jesuit University, he gets to have an attitude. I am sure you wrote that into his contract. Maybe it occurred to you that his attitude sent him packing, but I doubt it. And BTW, Buzz will always be your boy, in spite of your denials. Your loyalty to the phony downhome lonesome cowboy is admirable. May the parables be written about that loyalty.

I don't think anyone would read the parables. Largely because no one really cares.

[The Equalizer]

#3 If Derrick Wilson was bad enough to RUIN MU's season, wouldn't the E8's team's offensive & defensive numbers been HORRIBLE when Derrick was in the game back then?

#4 On the E8 team, did the team's production greatly decrease when DW was in the game (13mpg)?

I don't think you can draw such conclusions.

In the E8 season, Buzz likely matched the moves of the opposing coach with respect to PG minutes (and vice versa).  I would venture to guess that Wilson's minutes matched the backup PG of our opposition. 

Its like saying that MU never lost when Dylan Flood played, therefore he's no worse than any other player.

In the e8 season, Wilson got backup minutes--therefore there are no conclusions that can be drawn on what we did or the other team did while he was in the game.  His minutes were not comparable to Cadougan's minutes.

That having been said, I'm not willing to write him off for the coming season becuase I believe his play (as well as the perceived deficiencies of others) were largely due to poor coaching and player development.  I don't know whether he's not good enough---but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until we see what he does under coach Wojo.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I am sure glad that you are the determiner of who gets to have an attitude. As a representative of a Jesuit University, he gets to have an attitude. I am sure you wrote that into his contract. Maybe it occurred to you that his attitude sent him packing, but I doubt it. And BTW, Buzz will always be your boy, in spite of your denials. Your loyalty to the phony downhome lonesome cowboy is admirable. May the parables be written about that loyalty.

He is the boss of his team. He gets to run his team as he sees fit, provided it's in an ethical matter. He does NOT get to have an attitude with his boss. Just like any workplace in America.

With how much you bring him up. I'm beginning to think he is your boy 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I don't think you can draw such conclusions.

In the E8 season, Buzz likely matched the moves of the opposing coach with respect to PG minutes (and vice versa).  I would venture to guess that Wilson's minutes matched the backup PG of our opposition.  

Its like saying that MU never lost when Dylan Flood played, therefore he's no worse than any other player.

In the e8 season, Wilson got backup minutes--therefore there are no conclusions that can be drawn on what we did or the other team did while he was in the game.  His minutes were not comparable to Cadougan's minutes.

That having been said, I'm not willing to write him off for the coming season becuase I believe his play (as well as the perceived deficiencies of others) were largely due to poor coaching and player development.  I don't know whether he's not good enough---but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until we see what he does under coach Wojo.

For a "normal player", I would agree with you.

However, Ners is asserting that Derrick was so historically bad that he is the reason MU was bad.

If Derrick was really THAT big of a problem, he would have been a bigger problem in 13mpg (regardless of when he played them, or who the opposition was).

I don't think Derrick was so bad that he is single-handedly the player that sunk MU's season. To me, that's absurd.

MU had some holes last year at almost every position.
- I love Davante, but I don't think Derrick made him miss free throws.
- I love Jamil, but I don't think Derrick made him disappear at times.
- I really like Steve Taylor, but Derrick didn't toy with Steve's minutes, and Derrick didn't make Steve invisible on defense.
- Derrick didn't crush Juan Anderson's confidence.
- Derrick didn't make Juan pass up every open jump shot.
- Derrick didn't nail JJJ to the bench
- ETC.

See what I'm getting at?

LOTS of variables. Too many to isolate one and say "DERRICK WILSON IS THE REASON MU WAS BAD!!!"

It's silly.

AND, next year, if MU is good, it's not logical to say: "SEE! Derrick is playing less! He was the problem." That's f*cking idiotic.

[The Process]

I'm beginning to think he is your boy 

No, that's the Mythical Blue Chip Center Committing to MU

[NersEllenson]

For a "normal player", I would agree with you.

However, Ners is asserting that Derrick was so historically bad that he is the reason MU was bad.

If Derrick was really THAT big of a problem, he would have been a bigger problem in 13mpg (regardless of when he played them, or who the opposition was).

I don't think Derrick was so bad that he is single-handedly the player that sunk MU's season. To me, that's absurd.

MU had some holes last year at almost every position.
- I love Davante, but I don't think Derrick made him miss free throws.
- I love Jamil, but I don't think Derrick made him disappear at times.
- I really like Steve Taylor, but Derrick didn't toy with Steve's minutes, and Derrick didn't make Steve invisible on defense.
- Derrick didn't crush Juan Anderson's confidence.
- Derrick didn't make Juan pass up every open jump shot.
- Derrick didn't nail JJJ to the bench
- ETC.

See what I'm getting at?

LOTS of variables. Too many to isolate one and say "DERRICK WILSON IS THE REASON MU WAS BAD!!!"

It's silly.

AND, next year, if MU is good, it's not logical to say: "SEE! Derrick is playing less! He was the problem." That's f*cking idiotic.

As I said...please...go find an example in the last 10 years of a PG who got 970 minutes for the season and made 1, 3pt shot all year on 7% shooting and 43% FT shooting.  Those are historically bad numbers...and when the QB of your team is so inept offensively, yes, it cripples everyone else.

And really Guns - talk about f'in idiotic, you want to cite Davante missing FTs??  Pretty sure he shot them about 40% better than Derrick.

And lastly, no, it isn't f'in idiotic to think that if Derrick plays less next season and the team is better, it isn't evidence that he was the major problem with last years team (other than Buzz.)  How anyone would argue differently is what it idiotic, and the only people who would do so are you, Sultan, Tower, TAMU JesMU84, and MUSF - all guys who tried to tell us all of last year that Derrick wasn't the problem. At least the poll shows 84% of MU fans think he should play less than 16 minutes...

A team loses 20 years of experience in its 4 seniors, including its two leading scorers and leading rebounder, most efficient offensive player/best big man in 20 years at MU - and replaces it with Sandy Cohen and Matt Carlino - no reason that team should get better...as replacing Garndner and Jamil with Fischer and Steve or Juan is at best a wash, yet more likely a downgrade.  

The reality is, it should be easy to improve on 17-15, 9-9, as we were awful last year.  I doubt Derrick will play 30+ minutes a game ever again, and that will go a long way toward helping the team get better.  Yet, who knows, maybe Wojo is an idiot and went out and recruited Matt Carlino just for the hell of it..even though he has 3 PGs on the roster as it is.  Perhaps Wojo wasn't sold on Derrick a whole lot.  Hmm.

[Wojo'sMojo]

For a "normal player", I would agree with you.

However, Ners is asserting that Derrick was so historically bad that he is the reason MU was bad.

If Derrick was really THAT big of a problem, he would have been a bigger problem in 13mpg (regardless of when he played them, or who the opposition was).

I don't think Derrick was so bad that he is single-handedly the player that sunk MU's season. To me, that's absurd.

MU had some holes last year at almost every position.
- I love Davante, but I don't think Derrick made him miss free throws.
- I love Jamil, but I don't think Derrick made him disappear at times.
- I really like Steve Taylor, but Derrick didn't toy with Steve's minutes, and Derrick didn't make Steve invisible on defense.
- Derrick didn't crush Juan Anderson's confidence.
- Derrick didn't make Juan pass up every open jump shot.
- Derrick didn't nail JJJ to the bench
- ETC.

See what I'm getting at?

LOTS of variables. Too many to isolate one and say "DERRICK WILSON IS THE REASON MU WAS BAD!!!"

It's silly.

AND, next year, if MU is good, it's not logical to say: "SEE! Derrick is playing less! He was the problem." That's f*cking idiotic.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think was the main reason for MU's disappointing season? I personally feel Derrick was the main factor. Plenty of other minor factors that added up and helped in the disappointing season, but he was the main reason imo. I genuinely feel bad for the kid, because he was clearly in over his head and was painful to watch. If Carlino takes Derrick's minutes and we go 24-8 next year, I think it would prove how big a problem he really was.

[jesmu84]

As I said...please...go find an example in the last 10 years of a PG who got 970 minutes for the season and made 1, 3pt shot all year on 7% shooting and 43% FT shooting.  Those are historically bad numbers...and when the QB of your team is so inept offensively, yes, it cripples everyone else.

And really Guns - talk about f'in idiotic, you want to cite Davante missing FTs??  Pretty sure he shot them about 40% better than Derrick.

And lastly, no, it isn't f'in idiotic to think that if Derrick plays less next season and the team is better, it isn't evidence that he was the major problem with last years team (other than Buzz.)  How anyone would argue differently is what it idiotic, and the only people who would do so are you, Sultan, Tower, TAMU JesMU84, and MUSF - all guys who tried to tell us all of last year that Derrick wasn't the problem. At least the poll shows 84% of MU fans think he should play less than 16 minutes...

A team loses 20 years of experience in its 4 seniors, including its two leading scorers and leading rebounder, most efficient offensive player/best big man in 20 years at MU - and replaces it with Sandy Cohen and Matt Carlino - no reason that team should get better...as replacing Garndner and Jamil with Fischer and Steve or Juan is at best a wash, yet more likely a downgrade.  

The reality is, it should be easy to improve on 17-15, 9-9, as we were awful last year.  I doubt Derrick will play 30+ minutes a game ever again, and that will go a long way toward helping the team get better.  Yet, who knows, maybe Wojo is an idiot and went out and recruited Matt Carlino just for the hell of it..even though he has 3 PGs on the roster as it is.  Perhaps Wojo wasn't sold on Derrick a whole lot.  Hmm.

Logic 101. Even if Derrick doesn't play at all next season and MU wins it all, there are way too many variables in play to come to the conclusion that MU played better because Derrick didn't play. I'm not going to speak for the rest of your hit-list (there's a list now??), but, do I personally think if someone beats out Derrick as the lead MPG at the PG spot our team will likely play better? Yes, I do. But I also believe that development of the young guys in the off-season, plus a different team atmosphere, plus a different coaching staff will also be a reason our team improves, plus a different schedule would all be reasons our team improves. Again, no one is saying the team can't play better if Derrick plays less. NO ONE.

[NersEllenson]

Logic 101. Even if Derrick doesn't play at all next season and MU wins it all, there are way too many variables in play to come to the conclusion that MU played better because Derrick didn't play. I'm not going to speak for the rest of your hit-list (there's a list now??), but, do I personally think if someone beats out Derrick as the lead MPG at the PG spot our team will likely play better? Yes, I do. But I also believe that development of the young guys in the off-season, plus a different team atmosphere, plus a different coaching staff will also be a reason our team improves, plus a different schedule would all be reasons our team improves. Again, no one is saying the team can't play better if Derrick plays less. NO ONE.

The team atmosphere last year was bad...and it was bad due to Buzz's awful coaching of ALL the guys.  That bad coaching started first and foremost by playing Derrick and Jake max minutes - which without question would lead to frustration for Todd, JJJ, Dawson...and Davante as well as he was handicapped all year long by a packed painted area due to limitations of Derrick.  Juan starting over Burton.  Sure that was frustrating for Burton.  Buzz's maniacal substitutions and rotations.  Yes, all of that contributed to a bad season.

Yet, the biggest improvement the team can make next year - even though it lost its two leading scorers - will be replacing Derrick at PG.  The team should make a big jump, even though it will be quite young, and undersized...especially compared to last year's team.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

As I said...please...go find an example in the last 10 years of a PG who got 970 minutes for the season and made 1, 3pt shot all year on 7% shooting and 43% FT shooting.  Those are historically bad numbers...and when the QB of your team is so inept offensively, yes, it cripples everyone else.

And really Guns - talk about f'in idiotic, you want to cite Davante missing FTs??  Pretty sure he shot them about 40% better than Derrick.

And lastly, no, it isn't f'in idiotic to think that if Derrick plays less next season and the team is better, it isn't evidence that he was the major problem with last years team (other than Buzz.)  How anyone would argue differently is what it idiotic, and the only people who would do so are you, Sultan, Tower, TAMU JesMU84, and MUSF - all guys who tried to tell us all of last year that Derrick wasn't the the only problem. At least the poll shows 84% of MU fans think he should play less than 16 minutes...

A team loses 20 years of experience in its 4 seniors, including its two leading scorers and leading rebounder, most efficient offensive player/best big man in 20 years at MU - and replaces it with Sandy Cohen and Matt Carlino - no reason that team should get better...as replacing Garndner and Jamil with Fischer and Steve or Juan is at best a wash, yet more likely a downgrade.  

The reality is, it should be easy to improve on 17-15, 9-9, as we were awful last year.  I doubt Derrick will play 30+ minutes a game ever again, and that will go a long way toward helping the team get better.  Yet, who knows, maybe Wojo is an idiot and went out and recruited Matt Carlino just for the hell of it..even though he has 3 PGs on the roster as it is.  Perhaps Wojo wasn't sold on Derrick a whole lot.  Hmm.

FIFY

Seriously, you make that one change to your argument and everyone agrees.

[jesmu84]

The team atmosphere last year was bad...and it was bad due to Buzz's awful coaching of ALL the guys.  That bad coaching started first and foremost by playing Derrick and Jake max minutes - which without question would lead to frustration for Todd, JJJ, Dawson...and Davante as well as he was handicapped all year long by a packed painted area due to limitations of Derrick.  Juan starting over Burton.  Sure that was frustrating for Burton.  Buzz's maniacal substitutions and rotations.  Yes, all of that contributed to a bad season.

Yet, the biggest improvement the team can make next year - even though it lost its two leading scorers - will be replacing Derrick at PG.  The team should make a big jump, even though it will be quite young, and undersized...especially compared to last year's team.

100% agree. No one has denied that. No one has argued against that. We all believe that (including everyone on the axis of evil list).

[The Equalizer]

For a "normal player", I would agree with you.

However, Ners is asserting that Derrick was so historically bad that he is the reason MU was bad.

If Derrick was really THAT big of a problem, he would have been a bigger problem in 13mpg (regardless of when he played them, or who the opposition was).

I don't think Derrick was so bad that he is single-handedly the player that sunk MU's season. To me, that's absurd.

MU had some holes last year at almost every position.
- I love Davante, but I don't think Derrick made him miss free throws.
- I love Jamil, but I don't think Derrick made him disappear at times.
- I really like Steve Taylor, but Derrick didn't toy with Steve's minutes, and Derrick didn't make Steve invisible on defense.
- Derrick didn't crush Juan Anderson's confidence.
- Derrick didn't make Juan pass up every open jump shot.
- Derrick didn't nail JJJ to the bench
- ETC.

See what I'm getting at?

LOTS of variables. Too many to isolate one and say "DERRICK WILSON IS THE REASON MU WAS BAD!!!"

It's silly.

AND, next year, if MU is good, it's not logical to say: "SEE! Derrick is playing less! He was the problem." That's f*cking idiotic.

I generally agree with you--I don't think Derrick Wilson was the reason we had a bad year, either. 

I will say that I believe Derrick is capable of much more than we saw this past year--whether its more than Dawson or Duane Wilsion can provide next year remains to be seen.  I note that many of the other issues you point out are coaching failures, which makes me think that Derrick may also be a victim of that same deficiency. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think was the main reason for MU's disappointing season? I personally feel Derrick was the main factor. Plenty of other minor factors that added up and helped in the disappointing season, but he was the main reason imo. I genuinely feel bad for the kid, because he was clearly in over his head and was painful to watch. If Carlino takes Derrick's minutes and we go 24-8 next year, I think it would prove how big a problem he really was.

It's a fair question.

I was surprised at the team's struggles last season.

Here is what I think went wrong:

#1 The upper clansmen didn't improve. Jamil, Derrick, Chris & Juan were all basically the same player as the year before. If each of them saw a bump in production from the previous year, this team is probably pretty good. (I didn't really expect Chris to improve much, but you get the idea).

#2 Mayo and Gardner were improved, but neither was improved enough to cover up all of the team's flaws. They were both close to my expectations, but neither was really a wold-beater.

#3 Steve Taylor regressed badly. (you can pick the reason, injury, coaching, etc.)

#4 Lack of role players. Buzz has never been really good at developing specific roles for guys, and this year that became even more apparent. Too many minutes with guys he "trusts", which I understand, but he needed to do a better job of getting some guys into roles where they could be successful for 10-15mpg. (Dawson, Burton, JJJ, Taylor)

#5 Duane's injury. I didn't have huge expectations for him, but he could have been a good 10mpg player and provide MU with some punch. Derrick has some obvious limitations, and Duane might have complimented him well in a mix n match scenario.

Now, on the plus side, I think Jake was better than I expected, and so was Dawson. I think JD could be a nice player.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

As I said...please...go find an example in the last 10 years of a PG who got 970 minutes for the season and made 1, 3pt shot all year on 7% shooting and 43% FT shooting.  Those are historically bad numbers...and when the QB of your team is so inept offensively, yes, it cripples everyone else.

And really Guns - talk about f'in idiotic, you want to cite Davante missing FTs??  Pretty sure he shot them about 40% better than Derrick.

And lastly, no, it isn't f'in idiotic to think that if Derrick plays less next season and the team is better, it isn't evidence that he was the major problem with last years team (other than Buzz.)  How anyone would argue differently is what it idiotic, and the only people who would do so are you, Sultan, Tower, TAMU JesMU84, and MUSF - all guys who tried to tell us all of last year that Derrick wasn't the problem. At least the poll shows 84% of MU fans think he should play less than 16 minutes...

A team loses 20 years of experience in its 4 seniors, including its two leading scorers and leading rebounder, most efficient offensive player/best big man in 20 years at MU - and replaces it with Sandy Cohen and Matt Carlino - no reason that team should get better...as replacing Garndner and Jamil with Fischer and Steve or Juan is at best a wash, yet more likely a downgrade.  

The reality is, it should be easy to improve on 17-15, 9-9, as we were awful last year.  I doubt Derrick will play 30+ minutes a game ever again, and that will go a long way toward helping the team get better.  Yet, who knows, maybe Wojo is an idiot and went out and recruited Matt Carlino just for the hell of it..even though he has 3 PGs on the roster as it is.  Perhaps Wojo wasn't sold on Derrick a whole lot.  Hmm.

Regardless of what happens next season, or how Derrick plays, it won't "prove" anything. There are simply too many variables in play. That's science. That's logic.

[NersEllenson]

It's a fair question.

I was surprised at the team's struggles last season.

Here is what I think went wrong:

#1 The upper clansmen didn't improve. Jamil, Derrick, Chris & Juan were all basically the same player as the year before. If each of them saw a bump in production from the previous year, this team is probably pretty good. (I didn't really expect Chris to improve much, but you get the idea).

#2 Mayo and Gardner were improved, but neither was improved enough to cover up all of the team's flaws. They were both close to my expectations, but neither was really a wold-beater.

#3 Steve Taylor regressed badly. (you can pick the reason, injury, coaching, etc.)

#4 Lack of role players. Buzz has never been really good at developing specific roles for guys, and this year that became even more apparent. Too many minutes with guys he "trusts", which I understand, but he needed to do a better job of getting some guys into roles where they could be successful for 10-15mpg. (Dawson, Burton, JJJ, Taylor)

#5 Duane's injury. I didn't have huge expectations for him, but he could have been a good 10mpg player and provide MU with some punch. Derrick has some obvious limitations, and Duane might have complimented him well in a mix n match scenario.

Uh...okay..basically 5 things went wrong in your estimation...with barely a mention of Derrick being an issue....lump him in with the other upperclassmen not taking a big step up!!  How do you think MU would have fared had Derrick just hit a customary 75% from the FT line for a guard?  How many games did we lose in Overtime?  Where just 1 more point per game would have made all the difference?  What if our 31 minute per game PG made more than just 1, 3 point shot ALL year long??  If he could have knocked down just 1 per game, and shot 75% from the FT line...that probably translates into 5 more points per game....where does MU finish with 5 more PPG from PG position??  Hmm....I'm gonna guess a little better than 17-15..probably more like 22-10 and an NCAA team.

Regardless of what happens next season, or how Derrick plays, it won't "prove" anything. There are simply too many variables in play. That's science. That's logic.

Uh...okay...Wojo knew Derrick was a huge liability and his first signee as head coach was to get a 1-year rental at PG....even though he had an incumbent senior at the position who just got 31 minutes a game of experience his whole junior year.  Wojo knows.  Anyone with a shred of honest basketball intelligence knows you cannot win with a PG THAT incredibly limited.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Uh...okay..basically 5 things went wrong in your estimation...with barely a mention of Derrick being an issue....lump him in with the other upperclassmen not taking a big step up!!  How do you think MU would have fared had Derrick just hit a customary 75% from the FT line for a guard?  How many games did we lose in Overtime?  Where just 1 more point per game would have made all the difference?  What if our 31 minute per game PG made more than just 1, 3 point shot ALL year long??  If he could have knocked down just 1 per game, and shot 75% from the FT line...that probably translates into 5 more points per game....where does MU finish with 5 more PPG from PG position??  Hmm....I'm gonna guess a little better than 17-15..probably more like 22-10 and an NCAA team.

Uh...okay...Wojo knew Derrick was a huge liability and his first signee as head coach was to get a 1-year rental at PG....even though he had an incumbent senior at the position who just got 31 minutes a game of experience his whole junior year.  Wojo knows.  Anyone with a shred of honest basketball intelligence knows you cannot win with a PG THAT incredibly limited.

I think you are getting too tied up into the minutia of a specific player, and laying a lot on him. MU had several players who underperformed, or were simply the same as the previous year. When you are trying to replace Vander & Junior, you have to have guys get better. That includes Derrick. His performance wasn't good. It also includes Jamil, who was the same player, and Juan, and Taylor, who were arguably worse.

As far as Wojo bringing in another PG, I think it's a great move. MU needs better performance from that position. No doubt.

BUT, logically, there are far too many variables to "prove" anything. Again, that's not a rationalization, or "slurper". It's just logic 101.

[willie warrior]

I think you are getting too tied up into the minutia of a specific player, and laying a lot on him. MU had several players who underperformed, or were simply the same as the previous year. When you are trying to replace Vander & Junior, you have to have guys get better. That includes Derrick. His performance wasn't good. It also includes Jamil, who was the same player, and Juan, and Taylor, who were arguably worse.

As far as Wojo bringing in another PG, I think it's a great move. MU needs better performance from that position. No doubt.

BUT, logically, there are far too many variables to "prove" anything. Again, that's not a rationalization, or "slurper". It's just logic 101.

Jest a few corrections Ammo. Yes , Derrick's performance was not good--it was well below average. Yes, Juan was worse, Taylor never really had a chance due to Buzz's stupid rotations.

[NersEllenson]

I think you are getting too tied up into the minutia of a specific player, and laying a lot on him. MU had several players who underperformed, or were simply the same as the previous year. When you are trying to replace Vander & Junior, you have to have guys get better. That includes Derrick. His performance wasn't good. It also includes Jamil, who was the same player, and Juan, and Taylor, who were arguably worse.

As far as Wojo bringing in another PG, I think it's a great move. MU needs better performance from that position. No doubt.

BUT, logically, there are far too many variables to "prove" anything. Again, that's not a rationalization, or "slurper". It's just logic 101.

Can you provide a logic 101 case for how the rest of the guys on the court with a guy who doesn't need to be defended within 5' on the perimeter, are expected to perform well on the offensive end/take big steps up?

Can you explain which player you would try to take away with a starting lineup of:  Derrick, Jake, Juan, Jamil and Chris?

As for losing Vander, sure it hurt - but Mayo is virtually the exact same player as Blue - problem was Buzz only played him 23 minutes a game instead of Vander's 33.

I think you greatly discount the value and what the PG position means to a basketball team.  In my view, it is the most important position/player on the floor - and when it is of historical weak proportions...it makes it very difficult on the guys around him to significantly up their production.  The fact Jamil and Gardner were able to make slight upticks in their game is actually quite impressive.

I just fundamentally disagree that the blame rests at the feet of Gardner and Jamil for not improving to your expectations, when they were crippled with having to play with a backcourt of Derrick and Jake for 32 minutes.  Imagine what Derrick or Jakes production would have been if they were the ones consistently double teamed??!!

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Can you provide a logic 101 case for how the rest of the guys on the court with a guy who doesn't need to be defended within 5' on the perimeter, are expected to perform well on the offensive end/take big steps up?

Can you explain which player you would try to take away with a starting lineup of:  Derrick, Jake, Juan, Jamil and Chris?

As for losing Vander, sure it hurt - but Mayo is virtually the exact same player as Blue - problem was Buzz only played him 23 minutes a game instead of Vander's 33.

I think you greatly discount the value and what the PG position means to a basketball team.  In my view, it is the most important position/player on the floor - and when it is of historical weak proportions...it makes it very difficult on the guys around him to significantly up their production.  The fact Jamil and Gardner were able to make slight upticks in their game is actually quite impressive.

I just fundamentally disagree that the blame rests at the feet of Gardner and Jamil for not improving to your expectations, when they were crippled with having to play with a backcourt of Derrick and Jake for 32 minutes.  Imagine what Derrick or Jakes production would have been if they were the ones consistently double teamed??!!

The logic works like this:

There are too many variables to lay a poor season on 1 player, and specifically 1 stat, (3pt shooting). That's it.

Here it is in a math formula:
A+B+C+D = X.

We know B = 3

What does X equal?

X = A+3+C+D

That's it. That's all we know.

You have an opinion about Derrick, and I'm not debating you on that. I'm debating you because you are looking for validation from members of this board using faulty logic.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm sure this won't work, but I'm going to try and say a statement that I think everyone will agree with.

"One of the central problems, perhaps the number 1 problem, of the 2013-2014 Marquette Men's Basketball team was that its coach, Buzz Williams, let the team get into a position where he thought that the best option for the team's success was to play Derrick Wilson at the point guard position for 32 mpg."

Can we agree on this common ground? Honestly just curious if anyone else feels differently.

[GGGG]

I'm sure this won't work, but I'm going to try and say a statement that I think everyone will agree with.

"One of the central problems, perhaps the number 1 problem, of the 2013-2014 Marquette Men's Basketball team was that its coach, Buzz Williams, let the team get into a position where he thought that the best option for the team's success was to play Derrick Wilson at the point guard position for 32 mpg."

Can we agree on this common ground? Honestly just curious if anyone else feels differently.

That pretty much sums it up well for me.

[jesmu84]

I'm sure this won't work, but I'm going to try and say a statement that I think everyone will agree with.

"One of the central problems, perhaps the number 1 problem, of the 2013-2014 Marquette Men's Basketball team was that its coach, Buzz Williams, let the team get into a position where he thought that the best option for the team's success was to play Derrick Wilson at the point guard position for 32 mpg."

Can we agree on this common ground? Honestly just curious if anyone else feels differently.

I'm on board. But so far you only have support from the axis of evil.

But, I must make clear, I don't think any of us ever disagreed with that. And until recently, I thought EVERYONE was on the same page. It was only the new topic of "if MU does better this year w/out Derrick must prove everything last year was Derrick's fault" that got me going again. And I wasn't even arguing about Derrick or the team, but just the lack of logic in the argument.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'm on board. But so far you only have support from the axis of evil.

But, I must make clear, I don't think any of us ever disagreed with that. And until recently, I thought EVERYONE was on the same page. It was only the new topic of "if MU does better this year w/out Derrick must prove everything last year was Derrick's fault" that got me going again. And I wasn't even arguing about Derrick or the team, but just the lack of logic in the argument.

This.

I'm not debating because I'm a Derrick slurper, I'm debating because I have a degree from MU, and I was required to take logic.