My Concern

[Phantom Warrior]

Here's my greatest concern at this point.

Derrick is obviously Buzz's man at point for this year. Why would that change next year? Derrick is averaging more mpg than anyone else on the team. Even with Duane healthy and Dawson having a year of experience, I suspect Derrick will still be the starter and play starter's minutes next year, maybe not as many as he is this year, but maybe 24-25 mpg. That might not be a very appealing option for JD, nor Duane for that matter.

Losing Jake, Jamil, Davante, and Chris opens up a lot of minutes elsewhere so that maybe JJ and Burton can see decent playing time, even if Mayo returns (which I wonder about).

Of course, there is no use worrying about it. I can't do anything about it anyway. Time will tell.

[warriorfan4life]

If you cannot beat out a Derrick Wilson at Marquette, how are you going to beat out a more talented player for a pro roster spot in the future? Buzz will play the best overall players, but he will not hand out a spot just because you had a better recruiting profile or more hype from the media.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Derrick is Buzz's guy because he's our best point guard. Not that hard to figure out. When Dawson is hot, like he was at GT, Buzz lets him play. When Derrick is playing well and Dawson isn't, like we saw yesterday, Derrick plays. Not that hard to figure. Want someone to take Derrick's minutes? That's easy. Outplay him. It's not Derrick's fault no one else on this roster can regularly do that at the position.

[Markedman]

I think it will change next year if somebody else is better and Derrick is the same....that is why it could change......Hopefully with a year under their belt both Duane and Dawson will be better in all areas.

As Warrior said would you rather sit out a year and go to another school that will surely have somebody more talented for you to compete against then Derrick or kick yourself in the rear end and win the job here?

[AbovetheRim]

Derrick is Buzz's guy because he's our best point guard. Not that hard to figure out. When Dawson is hot, like he was at GT, Buzz lets him play. When Derrick is playing well and Dawson isn't, like we saw yesterday, Derrick plays. Not that hard to figure. Want someone to take Derrick's minutes? That's easy. Outplay him. It's not Derrick's fault no one else on this roster can regularly do that at the position.

Enough with the myth that Derrick "played well" yesterday. It was a losing performance, and let's not forget that by and large, he also plays mostly with starting caliber players who make him look better. Had Travis Diener, Dominic James or even Junior played exactly the same in a losing performance, nobody would have said they "played well." We'd be talking about what they didn't do, however right or wrong that may be.

Archie "played well." He was the only point guard on the floor that I noticeably saw playing well.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

I wouldn't be surprised if we play a lot of 3 guard lineups next year allowing Dawson and Duane to get more minutes, we will need there shooting ability

[IrwinFletcher]

As we know, this program has so many moving parts it is next to impossible to guess who will be where. I am curious as well to see what if any impact Hill might have on the team. Could be a contributor right away.

[The Reptile]

He will likely start Derrick, but Duane will get the chance to earn more minutes. That's just the way Buzz does things.

[Nukem2]

I wouldn't be surprised if we play a lot of 3 guard lineups next year allowing Dawson and Duane to get more minutes, we will need there shooting ability
That's a given. Very thin up front next year. Actually, I think Buzz does better with a 3 guard lineup....

[MU_Iceman]

My problem with what Buzz has done this year with the Guards is there are CLEARLY more talented players at each of the Guard spots that aren't getting minutes, and he lets his lessor talented players play more because A. They either practice well or B. They are very good knowing the scouting report. Ok....so?? They have to do those things, they aren't as talented as their back ups. Maybe the back ups make more mistakes playing as many minutes(especially defensively), but so what?? Typically they will make a play(s), during the course of a game to make up for it...that's what talented players do. Buzz is doing a dis service to the rest of the team by parading out lessor players game after game, and expecting their teammates to go to war with that.

It's like sending his guys into a gun battle, armed with butter knives. Buzz is too caught up in playing guys that "earn" minutes. To me, talent is what should earn you minutes...period.

[kneelb4zerg]

My problem with what Buzz has done this year with the Guards is there are CLEARLY more talented players at each of the Guard spots that aren't getting minutes, and he lets his lessor talented players play more because A. They either practice well or B. They are very good knowing the scouting report. Ok....so?? They have to do those things, they aren't as talented as their back ups. Maybe the back ups make more mistakes playing as many minutes(especially defensively), but so what?? Typically they will make a play(s), during the course of a game to make up for it...that's what talented players do. Buzz is doing a dis service to the rest of the team by parading out lessor players game after game, and expecting their teammates to go to war with that.

That's a hot take that I haven't seen brought up anywhere.

[WindyCityGoldenEagle]

To me, talent is what should earn you minutes...period.

I preface this by saying I'm not a fan of how the minutes are being distributed esp in the backcourt, I've voiced my frustration over this for some time....Yes talent should be the most heavily weighted variable in the should he play or not play equation, but Ice you're smart enough to know there are other factors that should go into determining minutes played. To say it should be "talent period" is ignoring a lot of other important traits of players.

[MU_Iceman]

I preface this by saying I'm not a fan of how the minutes are being distributed esp in the backcourt, I've voiced my frustration over this for some time....Yes talent should be the most heavily weighted variable in the should he play or not play equation, but Ice you're smart enough to know there are other factors that should go into determining minutes played. To say it should be "talent period" is ignoring a lot of other important traits of players.

I don't disagree with that. That being said though, push comes to shove, I personally will opt for the more talented player above all else in the end. Because, you take your team of lesser talented, but "smarter" players, and I will take my team of "not as smart", but more talented players and I will take my chances that I'd beat you a good majority of the time.

[ValiantSailor]

To say it should be "talent period" is ignoring a lot of other important traits of players.

Nothing is ever that simple. One can ignore life's complexities, but that doesn't make them disappear. I'd much rather our coach dealt with reality; leave the fan boards for the dreamers.

VS

[kneelb4zerg]

As Buzz has said, people just remember the results, they don't care to remember the process that led to those results. There's no magical substitute for hard work.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Enough with the myth that Derrick "played well" yesterday. It was a losing performance, and let's not forget that by and large, he also plays mostly with starting caliber players who make him look better. Had Travis Diener, Dominic James or even Junior played exactly the same in a losing performance, nobody would have said they "played well." We'd be talking about what they didn't do, however right or wrong that may be.

Archie "played well." He was the only point guard on the floor that I noticeably saw playing well.

It's not a myth. The problem was not Derrick and his performance is not the reason we lost. But if it helps you sleep at night to keep bashing one guy for what others don't do, I guess more power to you :rolleyes:

[AbovetheRim]

It's not a myth. The problem was not Derrick and his performance is not the reason we lost. But if it helps you sleep at night to keep bashing one guy for what others don't do, I guess more power to you :rolleyes:

Talk about taking out of a quote what you want. I did not say that Derrick is the reason we lost. Please go back and find that in my quote. I did say that he didn't "play well" by the standards of point guards that have come before him and the point guard he was outplayed by on Saturday. I don't think we need to lower the bar just to say he "played well." That evaluation is static. Again, had any of those guys played exactly the same as Derrick in a losing performance, nobody would be lauding them for "playing well." Why do some have an adjusted standard for Derrick?

[Goose85]

We all see talent with the young guys. Buzz and the staff do too and have said as much. Like most coaches, Buzz also knows what the game plan is and what expectations are based on the game plan and team defensive plan and expects it to be executed.

Sure Dawson hit a 3, but it appeared he was also easily beat on D three consecutive possessions or three of four, something like that. We were talking about it in our section when it happened.

Buzz has given Burton a chance in every game, but in the instance of Vill, he made mistakes early and I think that is what cost him playing time.

Not sure what the plan is, but I'm sure Buzz saw something in what Dawson and Burton did in their minutes that he determined would limit their minutes. You don't want to send a message to young guys like Burton, Dawson, JJJ, Du Wilson that no matter what you do, it is ok because you have so much potential.

Again, I'm not sure what factored into Buzz's decision on PT, but I'm sure he has a good reason because you can bet if he thought Dawson or Burton would have given MU a better chance to win he would have had them playing, like he did with Dawson / Taylor's minutes against Georgetown.

[mutpm]

MU was -7 in the 8 minutes Dawson played on Saturday. It's obviously a smaller sample size, but that's a lot for a short period of time. I have no problem with Derrick getting the bulk of the minutes.

The puzzling one was Jake. The team was -18 in his 29 minutes. It became pretty obvious by mid way through the first half that this was not going to be a game for Jake. He couldn't get open and he is very limited in creating his own shot. Buzz was a little too stubborn on not getting Mayo in earlier.

[TheSultan]

Really, the one phrase that is annoying me to no end is that Buzz is being "stubborn" for his player rotations. Like it is completely evident who should be getting more minutes, but Buzz is sticking with his guys out of the sake of sticking with his guys and insisting he can win with them.

Buzz is doing what he thinks is best to win games. And because Jake is generally reliable on defense and can help stretch defenses with the threat of his shooting, Buzz wants him on the floor.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Talk about taking out of a quote what you want. I did not say that Derrick is the reason we lost. Please go back and find that in my quote. I did say that he didn't "play well" by the standards of point guards that have come before him and the point guard he was outplayed by on Saturday. I don't think we need to lower the bar just to say he "played well." That evaluation is static. Again, had any of those guys played exactly the same as Derrick in a losing performance, nobody would be lauding them for "playing well." Why do some have an adjusted standard for Derrick?

The thread is about Derrick. You began your post with Derrick. You then called it a "losing performance". At no point did you say it was a team losing performance or point to any other players (outside of guys that graduated). In fact, you pointed to the other players he played with being better, which only increases the likelihood that when you said "losing performance" you were singling him out.

Derrick had 6 points, 7 assists, 5 rebounds, and only 3 turnovers. As a team, we had a 1.18 points per possession efficiency on offense, well above our average number this season, meaning the offense as a whole played very well with Derrick at the point. So yes, he did play well. Perhaps the other guys you mention would have had more points, (and most likely fewer rebounds and more turnovers) but that doesn't mean Derrick had a bad game. He played well. It's not a myth.

[MU_Iceman]

We all see talent with the young guys. Buzz and the staff do too and have said as much. Like most coaches, Buzz also knows what the game plan is and what expectations are based on the game plan and team defensive plan and expects it to be executed.

Sure Dawson hit a 3, but it appeared he was also easily beat on D three consecutive possessions or three of four, something like that. We were talking about it in our section when it happened.

Buzz has given Burton a chance in every game, but in the instance of Vill, he made mistakes early and I think that is what cost him playing time.

Not sure what the plan is, but I'm sure Buzz saw something in what Dawson and Burton did in their minutes that he determined would limit their minutes. You don't want to send a message to young guys like Burton, Dawson, JJJ, Du Wilson that no matter what you do, it is ok because you have so much potential.

Again, I'm not sure what factored into Buzz's decision on PT, but I'm sure he has a good reason because you can bet if he thought Dawson or Burton would have given MU a better chance to win he would have had them playing, like he did with Dawson / Taylor's minutes against Georgetown.


I was specifically referring to Mayo. To me there is no justification for starting Jake over him. Todd is as good of a defender, he's as good(or better) of a 3 point shooter, and, most importantly, he's the only guy on the team that can create for himself.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I really think Todd's inconsistency is what kills him. We've definitely seen him to be practically two different players regarding how he does at home and on the road. I think that only enhances his reputation for the people calling for him to start, because more often than not he's been very good when we see him live. But when bad, Todd can be really bad. The Georgetown game was a great example. Outside of one shot, very forgettable performance. I would guess if you look strictly at statlines in terms of wins and losses, Todd probably has the biggest disparity in terms of being good when we win and bad when we lose. If he has similar inconsistencies in practice, it's easy to understand why he doesn't start. Also, let's not forget that he drew the primary defensive assignment of Arcidiacono on Saturday. As good as Todd was on offense, he was as much (if not more) to blame as anyone regarding the porous defense that allowed 'Nova to beat us on our own court despite putting up a 1.18 ppp.