Derrick Wilson Questionable for tOSU

[madtownwarrior]

your leaving the door wide open for 4 on 5 comments...

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.   

[PGsHeroes32]

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...

Well I think Ners is the only one who actually thinks 8 dressed players is a good thing lol

[NersEllenson]

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.

No worries.  I see it as an opportunity cost type of scenario - playing Derrick minutes comes at the expense of others whom I feel are simply better.  Sorry.  But, that doesn't mean I WISH he gets hurt or am "happy" that he's hurt.

And please, remind me of the last game you recall 3 of our guys fouling out??  Having 8 capable players is enough.  Having a 9th a luxury, I guess.  Depth in our backcourt right now isn't an issue. Steve or Juan get in foul trouble - that's where we are really F'd.

[g0lden3agle]

No worries.  I see it as an opportunity cost type of scenario - playing Derrick minutes comes at the expense of others whom I feel are simply better.  Sorry.  But, that doesn't mean I WISH he gets hurt or am "happy" that he's hurt.

And please, remind me of the last game you recall 3 of our guys fouling out??  Having 8 capable players is enough.  Having a 9th a luxury, I guess.  Depth in our backcourt right now isn't an issue.  Luke or Juan get in foul trouble - that's where we are really F'd.

Last game Derrick got 13 minutes.  That same game Dawson got 4 minutes of action.  What % of Derrick's minutes does Dawson pick up tomorrow?

[MerrittsMustache]

No worries.  I see it as an opportunity cost type of scenario - playing Derrick minutes comes at the expense of others whom I feel are simply better.  Sorry.  But, that doesn't mean I WISH he gets hurt or am "happy" that he's hurt.

And please, remind me of the last game you recall 3 of our guys fouling out??  Having 8 capable players is enough.  Having a 9th a luxury, I guess.  Depth in our backcourt right now isn't an issue.  Luke or Juan get in foul trouble - that's where we are really F'd.

On Friday night, an under-sized Ball State team had 3 players foul out against Utah and 3 other players finished with 4 fouls. Ball State had the luxury of playing 10 guys, 9 of whom played more than 10 minutes.

Statistically speaking, if there are fewer subs (i.e. fewer ways to spread the minutes), it increases the chances of individual players getting into foul trouble.

[robertoc]

OMG. The sky is falling....OMG....the sky is falling. What will happen to us without the elight one?

Really?  No one else going to ask Willie what the hell an "elight one" is?

 

[g0lden3agle]

Really?  No one else going to ask Willie what the hell and "elight one" is?

 

It's easier to just let him rave on in his own little corner of the forum.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

It's easier to just let him rave on in his own little corner of the forum.

Well done!!!!

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

Wonder how many people on this board said Wojo was a genius for offering Wally a scholly "because you only need 8 or 9 players to compete" are now doom and gloom because we only have 8 or 9 players.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Wonder how many people on this board said Wojo was a genius for offering Wally a scholly "because you only need 8 or 9 players to compete" are now doom and gloom because we only have 8 or 9 players.

I dont remember that being an argument. I think everybody realized the end goal Wojo had in mind and everybody was pretty much on board.

[MerrittsMustache]

Wonder how many people on this board said Wojo was a genius for offering Wally a scholly "because you only need 8 or 9 players to compete" are now doom and gloom because we only have 8 or 9 players.

I also don't remember this argument being made but there's a significant difference between playing a standard 8-man rotation and having only 8 guys available to play.

[frozena pizza]

There will be various injuries to deal with throughout the year.  Get used to it.

We have nothing to lose in this game and I view it as an opportunity.  I hope we don't get destroyed, but if we do it will be a learning experience that will benefit us in conference play.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

No worries.  I see it as an opportunity cost type of scenario - playing Derrick minutes comes at the expense of others whom I feel are simply better.  Sorry.  But, that doesn't mean I WISH he gets hurt or am "happy" that he's hurt.

There is ZERO strategic advantage in one of your own players being hurt. ZERO. Losing a player automatically lowers your team's capability, no matter how terrible they are. If I was a walk on for Marquette, losing me to injury lowers our team's ability. By .0000001% in my case, but it lowers it. There is no addition by subtraction here, because you get nothing in return. Unless you truly think that Derrick has negative value as a college basketball player.

And please, remind me of the last game you recall 3 of our guys fouling out??  Having 8 capable players is enough.  Having a 9th a luxury, I guess.  Depth in our backcourt right now isn't an issue.  Luke or Juan get in foul trouble - that's where we are really F'd.

Now you are being deliberately stubborn. The less players you have, the less you can spread out fouls between them. With only 8 players, you may not be able to sub out a player who gets two or three fouls quick. In addition, we are undersized. Since you were a stud high school player, you should know that undersized teams tend to pick up fouls quicker because they have to hack the bigger players to prevent points in the paint. It also seems like Wojo likes to play full court and 3/4 court presses with lots of on the ball pressure. That means lots of cheap fouls on your guards. You need as much as depth as possible at that position.

You may recall that against a very undersized and much less talented UT Martin we had four players end up with four fouls. If the refs call it a little stricter, or we get injured, or if we foul more because of Ohio State's talent and size than we are screwed.

But you know all this. Despite your attempts to fool us, you have a lot of basketball knowledge. That's why I don't, and many others don't buy your "I'm not happy he's out" act. You know there is zero advantage to having Derrick out. But this is a chance for Dawson to play and prove everyone, including Wojo, wrong. Then you would finally be proven right! Your fandom is backwards when being proven right is a higher priority than your team winning.

[NersEllenson]

On Friday night, an under-sized Ball State team had 3 players foul out against Utah and 3 other players finished with 4 fouls. Ball State had the luxury of playing 10 guys, 9 of whom played more than 10 minutes.

Statistically speaking, if there are fewer subs (i.e. fewer ways to spread the minutes), it increases the chances of individual players getting into foul trouble.

I get your point, yet I'd say statistically speaking it is a huge anamoly for a team to have more than 3 guys foul out of game.  Obviously, going in with 8, you know you have to pay extra attention to the foul situation, yet like any game, when player gets in legitimate foul trouble, he'll go to the bench.  I simply don't see a scenario where MU ultimately ends up having 4 guys foul out of this game or any for that matter, and being left to play 4 on 5 (which, let's recall, Buzz said we did all of last year anyway.)   

[NersEllenson]

There is ZERO strategic advantage in one of your own players being hurt. ZERO. Losing a player automatically lowers your team's capability, no matter how terrible they are. If I was a walk on for Marquette, losing me to injury lowers our team's ability. By .0000001% in my case, but it lowers it. There is no addition by subtraction here, because you get nothing in return. Unless you truly think that Derrick has negative value as a college basketball player.

Now you are being deliberately stubborn. The less players you have, the less you can spread out fouls between them. With only 8 players, you may not be able to sub out a player who gets two or three fouls quick. In addition, we are undersized. Since you were a stud high school player, you should know that undersized teams tend to pick up fouls quicker because they have to hack the bigger players to prevent points in the paint. It also seems like Wojo likes to play full court and 3/4 court presses with lots of on the ball pressure. That means lots of cheap fouls on your guards. You need as much as depth as possible at that position.

You may recall that against a very undersized and much less talented UT Martin we had four players end up with four fouls. If the refs call it a little stricter, or we get injured, or if we foul more because of Ohio State's talent and size than we are screwed.

But you know all this. Despite your attempts to fool us, you have a lot of basketball knowledge. That's why I don't, and many others don't buy your "I'm not happy he's out" act. You know there is zero advantage to having Derrick out. But this is a chance for Dawson to play and prove everyone, including Wojo, wrong. Then you would finally be proven right! Your fandom is backwards when being proven right is a higher priority than your team winning.

Do you understand the concept of Opportunity Cost? Clearly not.

And no, my fandom isn't backwards - this isn't about hoping to "be proven right" it's that my highest priority as a fan is my team winning.

I've also explained ad naseum why it is totally and completely plausible at this stage of the season as to why Wojo would be riding Derrick...incumbent, experience, captain, high character, good defender - yet those traits don't necessarily mean nor translate into being the best option for those minutes.  It's still obviously very early and Wojo has to sort all of this out.

[Wojo'sMojo]

I am hoping Dawson seizes the opportunity and makes Wojo realize he can play well given minutes. We might miss Derrick's defense and his 5 fouls, but our offense will not suffer at all.

[The Equalizer]

Lost amongst the bickering over Wilson is the misplaced concern over three players fouling out in the same game.  

Last year we had 13 dq's all season.

The year before only 6 all season.

Before that, only 5 all season.

And while I haven't looked, my guess is at least some of those were intentional fouls at the end of close games.

I don't think we need to be overly concerned that we would wind up with only 4 players on the court.

[g0lden3agle]

Lost amongst the bickering over Wilson is the misplaced concern over three players fouling out in the same game.  

Last year we had 13 dq's all season.

The year before only 6 all season.

Before that, only 5 all season.

And while I haven't looked, my guess is at least some of those were intentional fouls at the end of close games.

I don't think we need to be overly concerned that we would wind up with only 4 players on the court.

Wouldn't a more accurate look be some sort of metric of total team fouls per game?

[willie warrior]

Really?  No one else going to ask Willie what the hell an "elight one" is?

 

Not a typo, but it is your smug attempt to infer I do not know how to spell. I decided to change elite to elight to put a different perspective on his play.

[PGsHeroes32]

Lost amongst the bickering over Wilson is the misplaced concern over three players fouling out in the same game.  

Last year we had 13 dq's all season.

The year before only 6 all season.

Before that, only 5 all season.

And while I haven't looked, my guess is at least some of those were intentional fouls at the end of close games.

I don't think we need to be overly concerned that we would wind up with only 4 players on the court.

Yeah but as mentioned. On those teams we had options to bring in if there was foul trouble.

If vander picked up a couple quick ones. Enter Todd. If DJO also picked up a couple or Junior. Then theres Derrick or even Jamail.

Davante? Run small with Jamil. Jae picks up some quick ones? Jamil. Juan.

You see? there was depth everywhere.

With only 8 guys if a few people pick up two fouls they may have to stay out there because we don't have enough subs. It definitely matters having guys available for even a few minutes.

I mean if we get the Gophers/Lousiville refs...We'd be almost out of players at halftime.

[Nevada233]

per multiple twitter sources. Dawson may have to get some time in this one.

I want Dawson to get some time. Hes a D-1 athlete.... Its time to show and prove!

But never at anyones injury expense. We all want the guys to be healthy. 

[MUSF]

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.

It blows my mind that you truly believe you know better than two D1 coaches about Derrick Wilson's overall ability and value to a bball team.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who thinks you should never question or criticize a coach simply because, "he knows more about bball than you".  But in this case, two separate coaches with very different philosophies believe that Derrick Wilson is good enough to start and get significant minutes, and you seem to think he is no better than a walk-on.

Either your right or both Buzz and Wojo are both wrong...

[NersEllenson]

It blows my mind that you truly believe you know better than two D1 coaches about Derrick Wilson's overall ability and value to a bball team.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who thinks you should never question or criticize a coach simply because, "he knows more about bball than you".  But in this case, two separate coaches with very different philosophies believe that Derrick Wilson is good enough to start and get significant minutes, and you seem to think he is no better than a walk-on.

Either your right or both Buzz and Wojo are both wrong...

My OPINION simply is that at this point in time Wojo has a good number of reasons to roll with Derrick that I've stated many times.  I'll be surprised if come mid January Derrick is playing more than 10-15 minutes per game, regardless of if he is starting or not.

But, I also understand your point and others that this now 2 coaching staffs who have drawn the same conclusion - yet in the case of the Wojo administration this is still very, very, very early and how things are now, doesn't necessarily mean that's how they are going to be.

[BallBoy]

1.  Regardless of who we all feel is better or worse, we shouldn't say it is no loss or concern.  These guys work their butts off to represent our university.  
2.  Based on my initial review, I think Shannon Scott and Russell are who we need to stop.  They accounted for 17 of the 20 assists in the first game and Scott ran 30 minutes at point in a blow out.  Having an extra pair of legs to dog Scott on the defensive end can only be good thing.  If Derrick is a good defender, like two coaching staffs have said, then he can only provide value against Scott.
3.  Playing a guy 30+ minutes a game, especially, in a blowout indicates a weakness at that position.  Look at MU last year.  Again as many fresh bodies at that position might help expose that weakness.  
4.  I would rather a player prove themselves against a cupcake rather than a Top 25 competitor prior to saying there is a missed opportunityor an o-rating that won't be missed.

[MUSF]

My OPINION simply is that at this point in time Wojo has a good number of reasons to roll with Derrick that I've stated many times.  I'll be surprised if come mid January Derrick is playing more than 10-15 minutes per game, regardless of if he is starting or not.

But, I also understand your point and others that this now 2 coaching staffs who have drawn the same conclusion - yet in the case of the Wojo administration this is still very, very, very early and how things are now, doesn't necessarily mean that's how they are going to be.

There is absolutely no way that Wojo would "roll with Derrick" if he was so bad that the team is better off with him getting zero minutes.  Even if Derrick averages 10 minutes a game in January, your assessment of DeWill and Wojo's will be worlds apart.  You think the team is better with him getting zero minutes.  That equates to walk-on ability.  I find it hard to believe that two high major D1 coaches think a player that bad deserves 10 mins or more a game.