Problem wasn't height...

[NersEllenson]

Everyone writing height was out problem today...it's okay to be undersized if you have guards who can shoot. Guard play today other than Carlino was the reason we lost this game. Yes we gave up O Reboubds yet WI had converted very few of them. Other than Carlino I believe our guards were 2 of 19 shooting. Game over.

Also:
Juan - Pull up and take some of the midrange or 3 looks you had instead of trying to challenge a 7 footer. Juan has decent shot.

Duane - Hampered by playing alongside Derrick.

Derrick - Best asset is his man to man defensive skills. Zone D doesn't use those skills. Length helps in zone. Shouldn't be playing 30 minutes.  Need a better shooter in his place - whether Cohen, JJJ or Dawson.

[HutchwasClutch]

Derrick - Best asset is his man to man defensive skills. Zone D doesn't use those skills. Length helps in zone. Shouldn't be playing 30 minutes.  Need a better shooter in his place - whether Cohen, JJJ or Dawson.

JJJ?!?!?  Yeah, sure.  I think you could find walk ons who could shoot it better than that brick layer.  He's awful.  One good game this season for him, and since back to his garbage play of a year ago.  Good in the open court, that's all JJJ brings.

[NersEllenson]

JJJ?!?!?  Yeah, sure.  I think you could find walk ons who could shoot it better than that brick layer.  He's awful.  One good game this season for him, and since back to his garbage play of a year ago.  Good in the open court, that's all JJJ brings.

Fair enough. But, is he worse shooter than Derrick?  Hard to say but I don't think so.

[HutchwasClutch]

Fair enough. But, is he worse shooter than Derrick?  Hard to say but I don't think so.

No, he's not a worse shooter than Derrick.  But you'd struggle to come up with anyone in the entire country who's worse than Derrick shooting it (at least under 6'9")

[HallSports]

Height was most definitely a problem.  Aside from 6 blocks and who knows how many wild interior shots, WI was able to put a lot of pressure on our permitter players not allowing them to get open looks.  WI knew they would be fine if our guards got past them because we had no chance of scoring inside.  Pretty much all of Carlino's threes were contested/deep.  There were very few open 3 attempts available - aside from the two Juan attempted.  

[HutchwasClutch]

Deonte needs to settle for jumpers more, or maybe a better way of saying it is take what the defense is giving you much more often.  He's trying way too hard to force action to the basket when it's not there.  He's a good shooter.  I would say maybe the best on our roster after Carlino.   We needed him pulling up for J's way more than he did today.

[NersEllenson]

Wisconsin smartly sagged off Derrick more than other teams have this year. Yet not to the 6 foot extent we saw in conference play. But due to the sagging in Derrick today it caused problems for Duane getting driving lanes as well as getting free for decent looks from 3 as the floor spacing was reduced.

[BCHoopster]

No, he's not a worse shooter than Derrick.  But you'd struggle to come up with anyone in the entire country who's worse than Derrick shooting it (at least under 6'9")

Did not watch the came to closely, just looked at the box score, Derrick playing 35 minutes and no points and Juan over 30 with maybe 1 point, those 2 seniors are a disaster. Next year
will be a whole new team, how did Steve Taylor play?  He will be back next year but not excited about him at all.  I point MU has played 3 really good Big Ten teams and lost by 11 in all
three games, at least they did not get blown out.

[AirPunches]

Height was a pretty big factor today. Too many second, third, fourth chances for UW. You don't need to shoot a good percentage to win when you have multiple shots at the basket on each possession.

I don't see how Duane got hampered by playing next to Derrick. Seemed to work fine last weekend. The badgers made Duane a priority to shut down and they did. Unfortunate some of the other guys didn't step up on the offensive end.

[HutchwasClutch]

Did not watch the came to closely, just looked at the box score, Derrick playing 35 minutes and no points and Juan over 30 with maybe 1 point, those 2 seniors are a disaster. Next year
will be a whole new team, how did Steve Taylor play?  He will be back next year but not excited about him at all.  I point MU has played 3 really good Big Ten teams and lost by 11 in all
three games, at least they did not get blown out.

Taylor's been a disappointment so far, playing out of position or not.  He shows no real first step, quickness, post moves, etc.  He's still 6'7" with a decent frame.  He shouldn't be struggling this much just because he's going against bigger opponents.  I'm surprise at his weak start.  Hopefully he'll start playing better, they've got to have him contributing to be competitive this year.

[Marquette_g]

This is a great post as it is finally pushed me over the edge to ignore Ners. I feel stupid for being late to that party.

[NersEllenson]

Height was a pretty big factor today. Too many second, third, fourth chances for UW. You don't need to shoot a good percentage to win when you have multiple shots at the basket on each possession.

I don't see how Duane got hampered by playing next to Derrick. Seemed to work fine last weekend. The badgers made Duane a priority to shut down and they did. Unfortunate some of the other guys didn't step up on the offensive end.

The Badgers sagged off Derrick today about 4 feet. First team to do it this season and it clogged Lane and we could t space floor as well as if Derrick did go outside 3 point line to try to create spacing Badger defender wouldn't follow..hedged toward being a help defender on Duane and Carlino.

[HutchwasClutch]

I don't see how Duane got hampered by playing next to Derrick. Seemed to work fine last weekend. The badgers made Duane a priority to shut down and they did. Unfortunate some of the other guys didn't step up on the offensive end.

Spot on, I love Duane's play so far, and I'm still very enthusiastic for his future, but he was just flat bad today.  The Badgers were well prepared for him.

[NersEllenson]

This is a great post as it is finally pushed me over the edge to ignore Ners. I feel stupid for being late to that party.

I never mind being ignored by people who can't even attack the point being made...guard play was the reason we lost today. Period. 2nd chance points didn't. WI had lots of problems scoring against our zone. Problem was we were worse on the O end with our guards other than Carlino.

[HallSports]

I never mind being ignored by people who can't even attack the point being made...guard play was the reason we lost today. Period. 2nd chance points didn't. WI had lots of problems scoring against our zone. Problem was we were worse on the O end with our guards other than Carlino.

There's not a legitimate point being made. Anyone who watched the game can see WI's size killed us

[Class71]

I guess it is simply a way of looking at life. For many on this thread there is only the negative view coupled with unrealistic expectations. Oh yes, didn't someone say Kaminsky was going to score 40 and it was going to be a blow-out?  OK, I got it Wisconsin sucks since we all know MU sucks and, therefore, if UW was any good they would have beaten us by 40.  I guess some can not accept the simple reality that, while this team has flaws, it is very tough and will not give up. That my friends is character. Win or loose this team deserves our respect.

[NersEllenson]

There's not a legitimate point being made. Anyone who watched the game can see WI's size killed us

When 4 of your 5 guards (not being defended by size) go 2 of 19 from the field - anyone can see that's a big problem. Did Hayes get off?  Dekker? Kaminsky?  No. We struggled rebounding and that was largely a byproduct of the zone and WI launching lots of 3s which always are harder to corral as missed tend to carom quite far.

[forgetful]

When 4 of your 5 guards (not being defended by size) go 2 of 19 from the field - anyone can see that's a big problem. Did Hayes get off?  Dekker? Kaminsky?  No. We struggled rebounding and that was largely a byproduct of the zone and WI launching lots of 3s which always are harder to corral as missed tend to carom quite far.

It is not the rebounding battle that killed us, nor their inside scoring.  Our D took care of those limitations.  We lost, because we could not score the ball in the paint, even when we got by the defender.  That was a direct result of the height of Wisconsin. 

Height, was the problem.  Also, the discipline of UW on offense, they didn't allow us to capitalize on speed by causing a lot of turnovers.

[HallSports]

When 4 of your 5 guards (not being defended by size) go 2 of 19 from the field - anyone can see that's a big problem. Did Hayes get off?  Dekker? Kaminsky?  No. We struggled rebounding and that was largely a byproduct of the zone and WI launching lots of 3s which always are harder to corral as missed tend to carom quite far.

Well considering 13/19 shots were near the rim I'd say they were being defended by size.  They could get inside but once they were there they were greeted by Kaminsky and co.  We had no big men of our own for them to worry about so they are sitting there waiting to block a shot or cause us to put up wild shots (of which there were plenty).  If we had a legit interior presence it would have negated this problem significantly.  As stated above, their guards were in our faces on the perimeter because of this interior help that we had no counter for.

[wadesworld]

I never mind being ignored by people who can't even attack the point being made...guard play was the reason we lost today. Period. 2nd chance points didn't. WI had lots of problems scoring against our zone. Problem was we were worse on the O end with our guards other than Carlino.

UW Guards:
24 points
8-25 fg (32%)
5-19 3 pt fg (26%)
3-5 ft (60%)
5 rebounds
7 assists
1 steal
1 block
4 turnovers

MU Guards:
24 points
8-30 fg (27%)
4-10 3 pt fg (40%)
4-6 ft (67%)
8 rebounds
8 assists
4 steals
0 blocks
7 turnovers

By my count the UW and MU guards played a pretty even game.  But what do I know, you have a better knowledge of the game of basketball than guys who are paid millions of dollars to coach it, so why should I point out the facts when they mean nothing compared to your superior knowledge of the game?

[club cheezes VIP lounge]

UW Guards:
24 points
8-25 fg (32%)
5-19 3 pt fg (26%)
3-5 ft (60%)
5 rebounds
7 assists
1 steal
1 block
4 turnovers

MU Guards:
24 points
8-30 fg (27%)
4-10 3 pt fg (40%)
4-6 ft (67%)
8 rebounds
8 assists
4 steals
0 blocks
7 turnovers

By my count the UW and MU guards played a pretty even game.  But what do I know, you have a better knowledge of the game of basketball than guys who are paid millions of dollars to coach it, so why should I point out the facts when they mean nothing compared to your superior knowledge of the game?

game, set, match...well played.

[NersEllenson]

Well considering 13/19 shots were near the rim I'd say they were being defended by size.  They could get inside but once they were there they were greeted by Kaminsky and co.  We had no big men of our own for them to worry about so they are sitting there waiting to block a shot or cause us to put up wild shots (of which there were plenty).  If we had a legit interior presence it would have negated this problem significantly.  As stated above, their guards were in our faces on the perimeter because of this interior help that we had no counter for.

I can go along with your point. However, we had bigs last year..didn't matter. And Carlino and Duane were hampered due to WI playing softly on Derrick so their looks from 3 were highly contested as a result. You face 3 guards and you know 2 of them can hurt you from deep or off the bounce and the other basically can't hurt you in anyway - what do you do as a coach?  You use the weak players defender to hedge toward the strong 2 guards.

[brewcity77]

It was size. We had no one to seal the lane. Our guards were driving right into Kaminsky because they had no choice. Defense was good, but the refs allowed a physical game, which was never going to help us. The reffing was fine, the defense was good, but we don't have the personnel to win a physical game with a team that much bigger and stronger.

[tower912]

Who is talking about last year?   Today, Wiscy's size and experience was the difference.    Guard play was statistically even, today.   Today, the difference was reboundng and interior defense for Wisconsin.   Because every time MU guards drove, they were met at the basket by somebody a lot bigger.    Because of the size advantage inside, the Wiscy guards didn't have to be  worried about being beat off of the dribble, so they could get out and contest 3's.   Wiscy's size today meant that MU had very few open looks.    

[NersEllenson]

UW Guards:
24 points
8-25 fg (32%)
5-19 3 pt fg (26%)
3-5 ft (60%)
5 rebounds
7 assists
1 steal
1 block
4 turnovers

MU Guards:
24 points
8-30 fg (27%)
4-10 3 pt fg (40%)
4-6 ft (67%)
8 rebounds
8 assists
4 steals
0 blocks
7 turnovers

By my count the UW and MU guards played a pretty even game.  But what do I know, you have a better knowledge of the game of basketball than guys who are paid millions of dollars to coach it, so why should I point out the facts when they mean nothing compared to your superior knowledge of the game?

And one team plays a 3 guard lineup (MU) and the other a 2 guard lineup. Which means you better be getting some production from that 3rd guard. We get none. Zilch. Sorry..I stand corrected - 1 point in 35 minutes.

Game. Set. Match. Wojo will eventually figure it out.