Derrick Wilson Questionable for tOSU

[tower912]

I'm more optimistic about our chances now. 

A new low. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I do.  And I stand by my statement - harsh as it may be.  We won't miss that 22 O-Rating we got from Derrick last game, when those minutes can be distributed elsewhere.

Sorry you found it offensive, as I'm sure a few others did.  But, like I said above - I stand by the statement and belief, harsh as it may be.

Arguing a player should be benched is one thing. But wishing an injury upon or being happy that injury occurred to one of your own players is despicable.

[NersEllenson]

A new low. 

LOL - I knew it was only a matter of time...before you chimed in Tower.  Guess we'll see how the game plays out.  I know you were very bearish in the off season as to our chances this year to actually even improve on our record for last year - and have been popping off all offseason about what a rough year this will be.  Furthermore, know you feel it is critical to this team to have Derrick on the floor for 20+, and even with him, know you'd certainly have expected a fairly good trouncing tomorrow night.  Hell in your view, at this point, we probably shouldn't even show up in Columbus.

[NersEllenson]

Arguing a player should be benched is one thing. But wishing an injury upon or being happy that injury occurred to one of your own players is despicable.

I'm not "wishing" an injury upon anyone nor "happy" that one of our guys is hurt.  I simply feel that we have a better chance to win the game with the other guards getting Derrick's minutes.

[tower912]

LOL - I knew it was only a matter of time...before you chimed in Tower.  Guess we'll see how the game plays out.  I know you were very bearish in the off season as to our chances this year to actually even improve on our record for last year - and have been popping off all offseason about what a rough year this will be.  Furthermore, know you feel it is critical to this team to have Derrick on the floor for 20+, and even with him, know you'd certainly have expected a fairly good trouncing tomorrow night.  Hell in your view, at this point, we probably shouldn't even show up in Columbus.

Being happy because a player on your team is injured is just wrong and unhealthy on so many levels.   If you can't see the difference between being 'bearish'  (I am.   But I would love to be wrong) and being happy that Derrick is hurt, then I am genuinely concerned about you.  

[Tums Festival]

If Derrick is out, we will only have 8 playing.  11 on scholarship.  Wally and Luke ineligible.  Derrick hurt.

I get all that, but who is saying he won't even dress for the game? Questionable usually means it's 50-50 he'll play, not that he'll be in street clothes.

[Sharpie]

A new low. 

I agree. I think I've finally heard enough bashing on Derrick. Time for the ignore. I don't understand how someone can post non stop in every single dang thread about this. It's ridiculous. I've finally let it get to me.

[GooooMarquette]

I'm more optimistic about our chances now. 

Guess it wasn't just Bert.  You know our personnel better than Wojo too.  Color me impressed.

[NersEllenson]

Being happy because a player on your team is injured is just wrong and unhealthy on so many levels.   If you can't see the difference between being 'bearish'  (I am.   But I would love to be wrong) and being happy that Derrick is hurt, then I am genuinely concerned about you.  

Explained above.  There is a difference/distinction.  There have been many examples in sports where a guy gets injured, and the team ultimately goes on to do better things as a result - and the "injured" player ultimately gets to reap the benefits of being on a team that wins more.  Would Brett Farve have gotten the immediate playing time had Don Majikowski not gotten hurt?  Tom Brady?  Coaches feel a loyalty to vets in many cases, and often have a hard time making a switch - particularly when the vet is a stand up, hard working, high character guy.

[madtownwarrior]

a new low in reading comprehension and speculation.

1)  Questionable does not mean he is out for sure

2)  Nowhere did Ners wish injury to or say he is happy to Derrick is injured

[jesmu84]

I do.  And I stand by my statement - harsh as it may be.  We won't miss that 22 O-Rating we got from Derrick last game, when those minutes can be distributed elsewhere.

Sorry you found it offensive, as I'm sure a few others did.  But, like I said above - I stand by the statement and belief, harsh as it may be.

Even when factoring in derricks shortcomings, it would be more beneficial to the team to have another body for fouls and giving others a breather. That's where my problem with your statement is.

[NersEllenson]

Even when factoring in derricks shortcomings, it would be more beneficial to the team to have another body for fouls and giving others a breather. That's where my problem with your statement is.

Fair enough.  I simply feel that even with 8 we have enough depth at guard position that foul trouble won't be an issue, nor will stamina.  Most GREAT teams go with a rotation of 8 to 9 as it is.

[jesmu84]

Fair enough.  I simply feel that even with 8 we have enough depth at guard position that foul trouble won't be an issue, nor will stamina.  Most GREAT teams go with a rotation of 8 to 9 as it is.

I can accept that. Just different philosophies between us. I'd rather have as many bodies as possible just in case the worst happens.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm not "wishing" an injury upon anyone nor "happy" that one of our guys is hurt.  I simply feel that we have a better chance to win the game with the other guards getting Derrick's minutes.

That's exactly what you're doing. Because if the other guards were better, than they would play over Derrick. If Derrick has to be injured for them to get playing time, then they shouldn't be playing. But since you know more about basketball than Wojo, you are optimistic about this injury because now Dawson will have to be played an Wojo will finally see what you have seen all along!

[MU82]

I'm more optimistic about our chances now. 

I was hoping you merely forgot to use teal, but I see by your subsequent comments that, no, you're merely a douchebag.

Your lame attempts to explain that you aren't really glad Derrick is hurt ... ugh.

My record shows I do not think Derrick is good enough to be a big-minutes PG at our level, but I would never be as callous as you are. Throw in the very high probability that we'll need more than 8 warm bodies against Ohio State, and it shows an amazing lack of basketball knowledge for a guy who believes he taught the game to Naismith.

I lost a lot of respect for you with this one, and I was one of the few Scoopers who occasionally stuck up for you.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I was hoping you merely forgot to use teal, but I see by your subsequent comments that, no, you're merely a douchebag.

Your lame attempts to explain that you aren't really glad Derrick is hurt ... ugh.

My record shows I do not think Derrick is good enough to be a big-minutes PG at our level, but I would never be as callous as you are. Throw in the very high probability that we'll need more than 8 warm bodies against Ohio State, and it shows an amazing lack of basketball knowledge for a guy who believes he taught the game to Naismith.

I lost a lot of respect for you with this one, and I was one of the few Scoopers who occasionally stuck up for you.

MU82,

You always say exactly what I am trying to, but better. Cheers!

[MerrittsMustache]

Worst-case, Derrick will dress just in case he's needed to give spot minutes in a pinch.

Not sure what the injury is other than "lower leg" but at this point in the season, no use risking further injury by playing him if he's questionable, especially considering MU will need all the depth they can find in Orlando when they're playing 3 out of 4 days. The most important thing is to have him healthy for conference games.

[4everwarriors]

I'm sure Diener could dress in Derrick's uni and no one would be the wiser, aina?

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

I've never been a big Derrick basher, mainly because he plays for MU, so he's alright with me.  The guy gives it  his all and that's all I, as a fan, can ask for.

But honestly, I don't think this really hurts all that much.  It'd be nice to have him available off the bench in case of foul trouble.  Only having 8 players available is scary.  But this team is much better off with Carlino and Duane running the point.

Tomorrow may be ugly (I am hopeful), but I don't think missing Derrick will be the reason why.  Rebounding is a much bigger concern.  

[tower912]

My concern isn't so much that it is Derrick as it is that MU only dresses 8.    If, indeed, he is too injured to play, it isn't difficult to envision this being the first time since the 1985 NIT loss to IU where MU finishes the game with less than 5 players on the floor.   

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Damn, I knew I shouldn't have used up all my eligibility on intramural football

[PGsHeroes32]

While, I also am very pro Derrick riding the pine...this situation is not what I had in mind. My preference is that he isn't playing 30 minutes a game(or close to it) but we badly need him healthy.

8 guys is just terrifying. That is 5 less fouls we can afford and at least Derrick is a good defender.

Dawson barely played vs UTM and we can't even afford him to be unavailable for a game. Quick foul trouble or *knock on wood* an in game injury/cramp and we are screwed.

[GGGG]

Fair enough.  I simply feel that even with 8 we have enough depth at guard position that foul trouble won't be an issue, nor will stamina.  Most GREAT teams go with a rotation of 8 to 9 as it is.

Marquette's not a "GREAT team."  Marquette is a young, inexperienced team that is playing its first game on the road against a top 20 team in the nation.  Foul trouble is a legitimate concern.  So is being overwhelmed by the moment.  Having an experienced player, even if it is to get you the 8-10 minutes per game you advocate for him, is better than not having him.

I'm not going to jump all over you for being glad a player is hurt, because I don't think you want him hurt.  However, I will jump all over your supposed superior basketball knowledge.  Having more options available is better than less options - even if you don't end up using those options.

Not to mention that your obsession with this player is simply bizarre.

[PGsHeroes32]

And sure, many teams go with a rotation of 8 players(MU themselves) but that's with 4-5 other guys available should their numbers be called.

In this scenario we would HAVE to go with 8 guys and there is no fallback plan.

It is very different

[wadesworld]

So people are saying that not having Derrick is going to help Marquette's chances against Ohio State?  Wow.  So a team that is hoping to press after made baskets and dead balls and extend their half-court defense out to half court, and is thus very susceptible to fouls, can afford to have 1 less body available despite only having 9 total even when completely healthy?  Well then, I must not have played high school basketball or something, because this logic makes absolutely 0 sense.

On a somewhat unrelated note, can people please stop quoting Ners and just say his name if they're responding to him?  His complete lack of knowledge...and understanding...of...the English lan...guage...is hurting my...head.  Thank...you...