Another example of Buzz's stubbornness

I know people are going to say how dare we criticize Buzz after what he's done the last few years. No doubt he's done an amazing job, but the reality is even the top coaches (Izzo, K, Boeheim, etc) make mistakes and Buzz has certainly made his share this year. Last night was another example of Buzz's stubbornness and inability to trust underclassmen.

I woke up this morning and have steam coming from my ears reading on twitter and now this board that Buzz said "he sat Burton because of his defense." How can anyone(even the biggest Buzz apologists), including Buzz defend this decision? He was the only aspect of our struggling offfense that Xavier couldn't figure out (other than Mayo down the stretch).

How much value is too much value when looking at the defensive side of the ball? Yes you needed stops during that final 7 minute stretch, but you also needed BUCKETS! Hell, Xavier scored on 11 of it's final 14 possessions according to Paint Touches so I'm not really sure how much worse our defense couldve been with Burton in the game.

This is yet another prime example of Buzz being reluctant to trust a young player in a critical game. Again, I understand that Buzz doesn't want to just hand out playing time to freshmen - he wants them to earn it via hard work and I agree with this as it builds a better program culture. However, we are at the end of the season where Burton has clearly earned more of his trust. He had the trust to start him in the game but not finish a game that he was absolutely dominating?

Buzz's inability to trust an underclassman absolutely boggles my mind and continues to be one of Buzz's biggest weaknesses.

I do think that Burton was wearing down (and he needs to improve his conditioning in the offseason), but he should have been coming in for Jamil or Jake on offense.

Deonte got caught ball watching. Dunk, layup, dunk, sit. He was watching Christon and lost his guy on the baseline more than once. That was a crucial stretch. At the same time we were getting okay shots and even good shots and missing them. He will learn. The bench is a good coach.

Deonte was getting killed on weak side help vs the pick and roll. Numerous times. Buzz had a dilemma. I was pointing out to Mrs. Gato and X kept running it.

For what it's worth, after he sat, we scored on 5 of 6 possessions and put up 12 points in the process. Our offense wasn't the problem at the end, it was allowing 10 points on the other end in that timespan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smee

Deonte got caught ball watching. Dunk, layup, dunk, sit. He was watching Christon and lost his guy on the baseline more than once. That was a crucial stretch. At the same time we were getting okay shots and even good shots and missing them. He will learn. The bench is a good coach.

---

Yep, he made one bad defensive play. Yikes, I guess Jamil, Gardner, Todd ... should all have been sitting for their bad defensive plays.

Deonte was also on the floor when MU was making consecutive stops against X earlier in the game.

I won't go as far as the OP. I do not feel this team was a good defensive team and they were limited on O. Sitting Burton hurt the team. Make them play D. Get more fouls on them. I do not agree with the decision to sit him virtually the entire last 8:00 minutes. Baffling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MUMac

Yep, he made one bad defensive play. Yikes, I guess Jamil, Gardner, Todd ... should all have been sitting for their bad defensive plays.

Deonte was also on the floor when MU was making consecutive stops against X earlier in the game.

I won't go as far as the OP. I do not feel this team was a good defensive team and they were limited on O. Sitting Burton hurt the team. Make them play D. Get more fouls on them. I do not agree with the decision to sit him virtually the entire last 8:00 minutes. Baffling.

---

Yep. Ultimately, the goal is to outscore the opponent. I could see if Buzz was doing the offense/defense rotation thing like he does with Otule and Gardner; but, to sit Deonte for that extended period seemed wrong to me.

A question that needs to be asked is: should Buzz continue to play the current defensive philosophy with all the help defense required and the need to identify what needs to be done? Underclassmen seem to have a very difficult time absorbing the defense. Adding 5 frosh next year won't help that situation either. Is Buzz trying to be too complex with his defense? Too many open threes or guys flashing out too late to cover the open shooter or getting caught up in ball screens. Good to protect the lane, but teams really do shoot the 3 more and more ( and, do it well ). This year's guard tandem of Derrick and Jake did not help either as quicker guards went right around them ( see Christon last night ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MUMac

Yep, he made one bad defensive play. Yikes, I guess Jamil, Gardner, Todd ... should all have been sitting for their bad defensive plays.

Deonte was also on the floor when MU was making consecutive stops against X earlier in the game.

I won't go as far as the OP. I do not feel this team was a good defensive team and they were limited on O. Sitting Burton hurt the team. Make them play D. Get more fouls on them. I do not agree with the decision to sit him virtually the entire last 8:00 minutes. Baffling.

---

Agree 1000%. Was Deonte guarding everyone then? He was scoring a point a minute for gosh sakes - he was NOT personally giving up a point a minute. Prove it to me that personally gave up 23 or more points. If that was the case, which it wasn't then go with some sort of offense/defense like we did with DG this year.

We shouldn't recruit freshmen then - just go the JUCO and/or transfer route so they have freshmenitis purged from their bodies. If a player like Deonte can't get minutes on a .500 team then I'm at a loss for words.

Net, net Deonte was NOT part of the problem last night - I shudder at the thought of him not playing last night.

Deonte had a hell of a game. That said, honestly, what did you expect him to do that the team as a whole didn't do in that stretch? We scored 12 points over 6 possessions spanning about 5 minutes.

What more would Burton have done? What we needed was defense. Sadly, his replacement didn't do the job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewcity77

Deonte had a hell of a game. That said, honestly, what did you expect him to do that the team as a whole didn't do in that stretch? We scored 12 points over 6 possessions spanning about 5 minutes.

What more would Burton have done? What we needed was defense. Sadly, his replacement didn't do the job.

---

Yes, MU scored. Many times, though, we struggled getting into the offensive flow. It was Mayo or nothing. Derrick had to take a couple of end of shot clock shots. The offensive flow just was not there. Deonte opened up the lanes more. He was a beast last night, I expected if he played in the last 8 minutes, he would have continued to be a beast, not soft as Jamil played.

Guards were awful last night. They couldn't stop dribble penetration so MUs bigs overplayed. Leaving 1 on 2 at the hoop. X exploited it. While JW and Burton were the players that were scored on, blame the backcourt for the defense last night. No one could stick with their guy. Noticed how Buzz played small in the hopes of keeping X out of the lane? Didn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MUMac

Yes, MU scored. Many times, though, we struggled getting into the offensive flow. It was Mayo or nothing. Derrick had to take a couple of end of shot clock shots. The offensive flow just was not there. Deonte opened up the lanes more. He was a beast last night, I expected if he played in the last 8 minutes, he would have continued to be a beast, not soft as Jamil played.

---

Derrick took one shot in that stretch and scored. Would those open lanes have resulted in more than 12 points on 6 possessions? I know Burton played well, but come on, assuming we'd be better than that is pretty much absurd. That's near flawless offensive execution. Even if it didn't look pretty (and lord knows it didn't), it doesn't get much better than that.

We didn't need more Burton in that stretch, we needed Jimmy Butler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nukem2

A question that needs to be asked is: should Buzz continue to play the current defensive philosophy with all the help defense required and the need to identify what needs to be done? Underclassmen seem to have a very difficult time absorbing the defense. Adding 5 frosh next year won't help that situation either. Is Buzz trying to be too complex with his defense? Too many open threes or guys flashing out too late to cover the open shooter or getting caught up in ball screens. Good to protect the lane, but teams really do shoot the 3 more and more ( and, do it well ). This year's guard tandem of Derrick and Jake did not help either as quicker guards went right around them ( see Christon last night ).

---

Maybe Buzz should study Boeheim's 2-3 zone given that he'll have essentially 10 (incl Taylor given his season post-surgery) underclassmen next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewcity77

Derrick took one shot in that stretch and scored. Would those open lanes have resulted in more than 12 points on 6 possessions? I know Burton played well, but come on, assuming we'd be better than that is pretty much absurd. That's near flawless offensive execution. Even if it didn't look pretty (and lord knows it didn't), it doesn't get much better than that.

We didn't need more Burton in that stretch, we needed Jimmy Butler.

---

After Deonte went out, Derrick took 3 shots. One was blocked, one was made and one he was fouled on. All towards the end of the clock.

Deonte's last three possessions offensively were two turnovers and a outside jump shot early in the clock.

Is unbelieveable that you would take the last three Burton possessions to make your case and conveniently leave out the whole game. Deonte was far and away the most efficient offensive player in the game and to cherrypick those possessions (and to conveniently overlook that one turnover happened after a Deonte steal) and act as if the rest of the game didn't happen is really poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarriorOMalley82

Is unbelieveable that you would take the last three Burton possessions to make your case and conveniently leave out the whole game. Deonte was far and away the most efficient offensive player in the game and to cherrypick those possessions (and to conveniently overlook that one turnover happened after a Deonte steal) and act as if the rest of the game didn't happen is really poor.

---

What case do you think I am making? In another thread I said he should have played toward the end instead of Jake Thomas. Regardless, it makes it obvious why he should have at least rested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

Deonte's last three possessions offensively were two turnovers and a outside jump shot early in the clock.

---

yep. He needed a break. Not an 8 minute break, but he needed a break.

One of those turnovers was after he made a steal and was going to fast and had his pass deflected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewcity77

Deonte had a hell of a game. That said, honestly, what did you expect him to do that the team as a whole didn't do in that stretch? We scored 12 points over 6 possessions spanning about 5 minutes.

What more would Burton have done? What we needed was defense. Sadly, his replacement didn't do the job.

---

MU lost the game - I would have liked my chances better with Deonte in there - the end result certainly couldn't have been worse if Deonte was in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaribouJim

MU lost the game - I would have liked my chances better with Deonte in there - the end result certainly couldn't have been worse if Deonte was in there.

---

Yeah, I guess the idea is to out score the opponent. "Good" defense is nice, but need to have offensive alternatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaribouJim

MU lost the game - I would have liked my chances better with Deonte in there - the end result certainly couldn't have been worse if Deonte was in there.

---

You can't have that mindset. It's a complete fallacy. If Todd's three with 17 seconds left falls it's a tie game and we need one stop for overtime. You simply can't look at the result and say "we'd have been better off playing him because we lost." No one KNEW we were going to lose, so that's just 20/20 hindsight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewcity77

You can't have that mindset. It's a complete fallacy. If Todd's three with 17 seconds left falls it's a tie game and we need one stop for overtime. You simply can't look at the result and say "we'd have been better off playing him because we lost." No one KNEW we were going to lose, so that's just 20/20 hindsight.

---

BUT MU DID LOSE!!!!!!! THAT IS A FACT!!! I PERSONALLY would have liked our chances better with Deonte in there. That is only my position - others including you, feel differently. I was calling for him to get back in the game in the game thread because I thought we had a better chance to win with him there. FACT, the end result could not have been any worse if Deonte would have been in there, but we will never know if Deonte would have made any difference in the end result. You believe what you want to believe, but don't try to make up a scientific way to rationalize your position. There is no "fallacy" in mine.

No need to get all worked up, Jim. Your argument of "the end result certainly couldn't have been worse if Deonte was in there" is where you commit a logical fallacy. The only reason you can say that is because you know the end result. But with 7:00 left in the game, no one knew what the end result would be whether Burton played or not.

But what I'm more interested in is how Marquette would have been more efficient on offense or defense with Burton in there over that stretch. I don't think we could have been much better than we were on offense (12 points in 6 possessions) and I don't think Burton would have made the difference on defense (where admittedly, the guys that are supposed to excel were simply poor).

Bottom line, the offense was really good in that stretch. No offensive player was going to make that much better. The defense lost us this game. And for me that falls mostly on Derrick, Jake, and Juan, who were the guys rotating on Christon and either allowing him to get by or sending him to the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewcity77

No need to get all worked up, Jim. Your argument of "the end result certainly couldn't have been worse if Deonte was in there" is where you commit a logical fallacy. The only reason you can say that is because you know the end result. But with 7:00 left in the game, no one knew what the end result would be whether Burton played or not.

But what I'm more interested in is how Marquette would have been more efficient on offense or defense with Burton in there over that stretch. I don't think we could have been much better than we were on offense (12 points in 6 possessions) and I don't think Burton would have made the difference on defense (where admittedly, the guys that are supposed to excel were simply poor).

Bottom line, the offense was really good in that stretch. No offensive player was going to make that much better. The defense lost us this game. And for me that falls mostly on Derrick, Jake, and Juan, who were the guys rotating on Christon and either allowing him to get by or sending him to the line.

---

What you say has been the case in most of MU's 15 losses. Perhaps it's time to change up the modus operandi as MU has failed its test 14 times previously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nukem2

What you say has been the case in most of MU's 15 losses. Perhaps it's time to change up the modus operandi as MU has failed its test 14 times previously.

---

I disagree. Both ends have been a problem. Ohio State, SDSU, Bucky, New Mexico, @ Creighton, @ Butler, just a few where the defense was fine but the offense didn't do enough. We would frequently go without a basket for 2-3 minute stretches in close games at the end.

This team had problems on both ends of the floor. Last night, especially down the stretch, the offense was not the problem. The defense was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewcity77

I disagree. Both ends have been a problem. Ohio State, SDSU, Bucky, New Mexico, @ Creighton, @ Butler, just a few where the defense was fine but the offense didn't do enough. We would frequently go without a basket for 2-3 minute stretches in close games at the end.

This team had problems on both ends of the floor. Last night, especially down the stretch, the offense was not the problem. The defense was.

---

The defense was an issue in each of the games mentioned. Opposing guards were not well defended in any of those games going down the stretch with the exception of the SDSU game where their frontcourt took over. Though you are right that there have been problems on both ends. Pomeroy efficiency numbers for both are on the very low end for the Buzz era.

I think it's really pretty simple...

• Derrick wasn't ready for full time minutes at the point, but no one was competent enough to significantly spell him.
• Jake and Todd were both inconsistent as wing guards, and neither truly excelled on both ends of the court.
• Jamil was maddeningly inconsistent as the swing 3/4 and never stepped up as you'd expect a senior to, while Juan, Deonte, and Jajuan were at best average contributors on one end of the court and abysmal on the other while Steve was marginal on both ends.
• Our two-headed monster at center had the same problem, good on one end and bad on the other.

.
Quite simply, this team didn't come through like we've been accustomed to in recent years. All that said, I think this team really illustrates what Buzz has been saying for years about Marquette's small margin for error. If we close out Butler, Villanova, St. John's, and Providence, we are alone in 3rd place in the league. If we finish the SDSU, UNM, or ASU games differently, all of which were either tied or within a basket with under 5:00 to play, we have an impressive non-con resume. And if we finish Xavier differently, we are still playing today, with a 25-7 record.

Small margins for error. This year it bit us in the ass.

Certainly did bite us there. Vander would have helped that quite a bit. But, no use crying over spilt milk. Too bad Buzz could not anticipate that loss sooner. Jake and Derrick simply are not compatible as starting guards. Just what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewcity77

No need to get all worked up, Jim. Your argument of "the end result certainly couldn't have been worse if Deonte was in there" is where you commit a logical fallacy. The only reason you can say that is because you know the end result. But with 7:00 left in the game, no one knew what the end result would be whether Burton played or not.

But what I'm more interested in is how Marquette would have been more efficient on offense or defense with Burton in there over that stretch. I don't think we could have been much better than we were on offense (12 points in 6 possessions) and I don't think Burton would have made the difference on defense (where admittedly, the guys that are supposed to excel were simply poor).

Bottom line, the offense was really good in that stretch. No offensive player was going to make that much better. The defense lost us this game. And for me that falls mostly on Derrick, Jake, and Juan, who were the guys rotating on Christon and either allowing him to get by or sending him to the line.

---

My head hurts - I concede - if Deonte played in those last 7-8 minutes like I would have preferred, MU would have lost by at least a 100 points and if Buzz even had the thought of putting him in for even one mili-second he should have been fired.

Have a nice evening!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaribouJim

My head hurts - I concede - if Deonte played in those last 7-8 minutes like I would have preferred, MU would have lost by at least a 100 points and if Buzz even had the thought of putting him in for even one mili-second he should have been fired.

Have a nice evening!!!

---

Yep. That is the only way it could have gone in brew's mind. It get's tiring trying to discuss with him at times. :mad:

Jim, you created a logical fallacy and I called you on it. You can try to twist my argument all you like, but all I'm asking for is an actual reason why Burton would have given us a better chance to win.

We scored 2 ppp in the stretch in question. We gave up 1.67 ppp. I maintain the defense and not the offense was the problem. And Burton, as well as he played, wasn't going to help us get a stop.

And I'm not saying Burton shouldn't have come back earlier either. I'm saying if that's the point you want to argue, back it up with reason.