Game thread....

[MUMac]

Well, you pretty much seem to go out of your way to discredit everything Derrick does well, and harp on everything he doesn't. Confirmation bias.

I think the biggest problem with Derrick on Saturday is that he played too long. 36 minutes is simply too many and I think his defense suffered for it later on. I also don't think Dawson was *that* bad and should have gotten more like 15 minutes.

I agree and that was my point after the game. Dawson needed more than 8 and Derrick less than 36. I was not advocating for a flip of minutes, but some more balance.

[Nukem2]

I agree and that was my point after the game. Dawson needed more than 8 and Derrick less than 36. I was not advocating for a flip of minutes, but some more balance.

I would agree with that take as well. The one thing I would add is that Buzz should probably limit the minutes that Derrick and Jake play with the jumbo lineup (or, conversely, limit the jumbo lineup to situations). Again Saturday, MU had a slow start against a quality opponent leading to the recurring scenario of falling behind and catching up and falling behind and catching up.........

[Goose85]

I would agree with that take as well. The one thing I would add is that Buzz should probably limit the minutes that Derrick and Jake play with the jumbo lineup (or, conversely, limit the jumbo lineup to situations). Again Saturday, MU had a slow start against a quality opponent leading to the recurring scenario of falling behind and catching up and falling behind and catching up.........

I would like to see Jake get more minutes along side Mayo. Everyone complains that Jake isn't shooting, but I rarely see any multiple screens being set to get Jake a shot. Novak generally needed screens to get shots off too (not trying to compare the two, just the concept).

I usually defer to the idea that Buzz knows what players are supposed to be doing on the court, and is playing who he feels are the best options to accomplish the game plan. I love Burton, but at this point he allows far more points than he could score. Shore up the D and he will get time. Dawson has potential as well, but in the limited minutes he played on Sat, he was absolutely torched on D. Others were as well, but Buzz will defer to Derrick when he needs defense unless others show more on that end.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I agree and that was my point after the game. Dawson needed more than 8 and Derrick less than 36. I was not advocating for a flip of minutes, but some more balance.

I really think Derrick getting 25-28 and Dawson getting 12-15 would be a good balance. Ride Dawson when he's hot, but make sure Derrick is rested enough to keep up with the opposition, especially a team like 'Nova that has a deep backcourt.

[mufansince72]

I really think Derrick getting 25-28 and Dawson getting 12-15 would be a good balance. Ride Dawson when he's hot, but make sure Derrick is rested enough to keep up with the opposition, especially a team like 'Nova that has a deep backcourt.

At this point I have more confidence in Dawson improving defensively, than I do of Derrick improving offensively. At the very least, with tournament hopes most likely dashed, they should get approximately the same amount of playing time.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Derrick doesn't need to improve offensively to be efficient. We had one of our best offensive performances Saturday and Derrick was on the court most of the game. Why is this point so hard to grasp? Jesus, it's like points are the only metric some people see. We had a great offensive performance, Derrick was a big part of that, but because he didn't do the scoring, it may as well not have happened. Seriously, WTF is wrong that people are not grasping that under some circumstances, such as 'Nova guarding Derrick man-to-man all game, he is going to excel at running the offense? No, that's not always the case, but it sure as hell was Saturday. Are people so biased against Derrick that they can't see there are a ton of positives to his game, even on offense?

My god, most of the people who criticized Dawson were quick to praise him for his excellent performance at Georgetown. I was one of them. Why are people so pig-headed that they can't do the same for Derrick when he has a good offensive game?

[DCwarrior]

Derrick doesn't need to improve offensively to be efficient. We had one of our best offensive performances Saturday and Derrick was on the court most of the game. Why is this point so hard to grasp? Jesus, it's like points are the only metric some people see. We had a great offensive performance, Derrick was a big part of that, but because he didn't do the scoring, it may as well not have happened. Seriously, WTF is wrong that people are not grasping that under some circumstances, such as 'Nova guarding Derrick man-to-man all game, he is going to excel at running the offense? No, that's not always the case, but it sure as hell was Saturday. Are people so biased against Derrick that they can't see there are a ton of positives to his game, even on offense?

My god, most of the people who criticized Dawson were quick to praise him for his excellent performance at Georgetown. I was one of them. Why are people so pig-headed that they can't do the same for Derrick when he has a good offensive game?

You have pretty low expectations of a starting point guard in a major D-1 program if you consider that a very good game for Derrick. 2 points, missing the front end of one-and-one late in a game, and getting continually burned by the opponents point guard on defense is not a great game in my opinion. I'll give you that he didn't turn the ball over much and he had some good entry passes into Gardner for assists, but we need more productivity out of the point. What Nova's PG did should be considered a very good game from a PG.

A good PG has to be able to shoot it decently, break down the defense with penetration and find open shooters, make free throws, and want the ball and be able to make a play at the end of the shot clock or toward the end of a game. Derrick does none of these things. He basically brings the ball up court and tries to pass it to someone else right away. He's a solid backup who can play good D in limited minutes, but unfortunately he's been forced to start and play more minutes than he should.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Are you not reading the rest of these threads, or simply not watching the game?

You have pretty low expectations of a starting point guard in a major D-1 program if you consider that a very good game for Derrick. 2 points,

Derrick scored 6 points. I don't feel scoring is the only (or even best) metric of determining how a point guard plays, but if you're going to bash a guy's lack of scoring, at least get it right.

missing the front end of one-and-one late in a game,

Uhh...so a missed free throw equates to a bad game? Too bad our best offensive player, Davante, missed more free throws in that one game than he had in the entire Big East season to date. But yes, let's pile on the guy who shoots 50% from the line when we know that's not his strength or the reason he's on the court.

and getting continually burned by the opponents point guard on defense is not a great game in my opinion.

Derrick was very rarely guarding Arcidiacono. That assignment mostly fell to Mayo. If you want to criticize his defense, point more to what he didn't do on Chennault, or maybe cherry pick the blow-by on what should have been the game-winning play if not for the refs botching the charge call. But the people who like to bash Derrick rarely like to let facts get in the way of the narrative, so yes, Derrick did HORRIBLE on Archie.

I'll give you that he didn't turn the ball over much and he had some good entry passes into Gardner for assists, but we need more productivity out of the point.

Derrick accounted for an additional 5 possessions with his rebounds, 6 points he scored himself, and another 15 points on his assists (one three for Mayo). So that's 21 points and 5 possessions. In addition, we averaged 1.18 ppp, well over our season average of 1.08. That's with Derrick at the point. So even though not everything Derrick did on offense will show up on the scoresheet, the team as a whole was very productive. And shouldn't the credit for that go to the point guard? Or is that only when John Dawson is playing?

What Nova's PG did should be considered a very good game from a PG.

Yeah. Duh. But Derrick isn't Ryan Arcidiacono. I'm not going to judge Derrick on Archie's game any more than I'm going to judge him on Derrick Rose or Magic Johnson's game. I'm going to judge Derrick on Derrick and on the needs of this team. 6 points (yes, 6), 7 assists, and 5 rebounds is a good game. Especially when he only turns the ball over 3 times (and that's one of his 3 worst turnover games this year). Derrick played well, the offense was great. The problems were not on the offensive end. If we could have pulled down defensive rebounds or gotten a stop, we would have won. We didn't. So if you're going to piss and whine, why not complain about the end that was the problem, which was the defensive end? Oh, right...because Arcidiacono had a field day on Derrick.

A good PG has to be able to shoot it decently

Not necessarily. It helps, but it's not a necessity, especially if there are other guys on the court that can score.

break down the defense with penetration and find open shooters,

They don't have to break down the defense with penetration, but they do need a way to break down the defense. Derrick has grown this season into a solid driver and his 3.8 apg are equal to what Junior had as a senior last year. So it looks like he can find open shooters.

make free throws,

So I guess Dominic James wasn't a good point guard, because he was a worse free throw shooter than Derrick is.

and want the ball and be able to make a play at the end of the shot clock or toward the end of a game.

Not the case at all. This isn't a one man team. I have issues when Derrick has the ball and no one to pass to late in the shot clock because that's not his role. We have other guys that are that type of player (Mayo) so make sure they have the ball. I also wonder, if Derrick had been able to get the floater to go over Bachynski and we won that game, would people have a radically different opinion of him? Probably not...everyone's opinion was already made up.

Derrick does none of these things. He basically brings the ball up court and tries to pass it to someone else right away.

He does some of them, but doesn't need to do all of them. And if you really think that's his role, you are willfully blind. You don't average 3.8 assists by passing it as soon as you cross the half court line and hiding for the remaining 28 seconds of the possession.

He's a solid backup who can play good D in limited minutes, but unfortunately he's been forced to start and play more minutes than he should.

Ideally, yes, we would have someone better. We don't. He is without a doubt the best and most complete point guard we have. Maybe that's not saying much, but all this hand-wringing over the issue doesn't accomplish anything other than making people even more irritated without just cause, and moreso seems to lead to posters making things up and refusing to change their opinions despite the facts no longer supporting what they believed on November 16.

[mufansince72]

Again Brew, try looking at the season body of work, instead of one game. He had a good game for Derrick! Unfortunately, through no fault of his own, a good game for Derrick is not good enough to win consistently in the Big East. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I feel the same way about Jake Thomas if it makes you feel any better. I don't think he is good enough to be a starter in the Big East either. Both those guys should be role players. It's not their fault they are starting, but the fact remains they are, and they are not good enough to win consistently.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Again Brew, try looking at the season body of work, instead of one game. He had a good game for Derrick! Unfortunately, through no fault of his own, a good game for Derrick is not good enough to win consistently in the Big East. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I feel the same way about Jake Thomas if it makes you feel any better. I don't think he is good enough to be a starter in the Big East either. Both those guys should be role players. It's not their fault they are starting, but the fact remains they are, and they are not good enough to win consistently.

Because the season body of work is a collection of single games. And for the most part, when we've lost, it's been a product of our best players not stepping up, not because Derrick didn't do what he was supposed to do. Interestingly, when other guys wilt, Derrick often is the one stepping up. He was one of if not our best player against Arizona State, San Diego State, and Butler, but despite him lifting his game the rest of the team couldn't do the same. The irony is most of the games people complain about what Derrick did or didn't do are games we won rather than games we lost.

We have quite a few wins when Derrick is mediocre. The problem is that when Derrick steps up and plays like a legitimate high major point guard, the rest of the team fails to match his effort and we end up losing. If we could get the same effort and tenacity out of the guys with more talent than Derrick has, we'd have a much better record. And yet he seems to take 80% of the blame.

The games people have problems with are the losses. So let's look at them, with green being good Derrick, red being bad Derrick, and black being neutral Derrick:

Ohio State: Derrick wasn't very good, but neither was anyone else. Definitely a team loss. He's as much to blame as anyone, but not sure he's more to blame.
Arizona State: Derrick was arguably our best player. Great performance and not at all Derrick's fault we lost. Poor positioning by other guys forced him to drive at Bachynski for the tying basket, which was always a losing proposition.
San Diego State: Derrick was playing very well until he took the injury. Probably shouldn't have played as many second half minutes as he did, but if he stays healthy there's a good chance we win.
Wisconsin: One of the lowlights of Derrick's season. I'd put that one on him.
New Mexico: Our biggest problem was not adjusting to Cullen Neal and the massive FT disparity. Derrick's 4 fouls didn't help, but as a team we made a lot of mistakes. Like the OSU game, a team loss.
Creighton: Dumpster fire. Jamil's turnovers, Todd's awful night, but Derrick only getting 1 assist while trying to force things too much didn't help at all.
Xavier: Solid performance with 5:0 A:T ratio, and was nice to see the spread in minutes give John-John a chance. We lost this because we got mauled on the boards. Our guards outrebounded our frontcourt 13-7. If the bigs do their job as well as Derrick and the guards did, we win.
Butler: Ironically, I was disappointed with Derrick this game, but most people were happy with him. Why? Well, I didn't like the turnovers, but everyone else liked the scoring. Regardless, Derrick did a bit of everything but our SGs combined for 3/18 from the floor. Can't blame that on Derrick.
Villanova: I've reiterated time and time again the past couple days that Derrick had a good game. He did. You don't seem to be arguing it, more saying I'm looking at one game and not the season. Bottom line, 'Nova isn't on Derrick.

So if you look at the losses, I'd say that 2 were Derrick's fault, 2 were games where the team and coaching staff were to blame, and 5 where we probably could have won if the rest of the team had played more like Derrick. Now do you see why I look at individual games? Because the games that people get up in arms about, by and large, aren't Derrick's fault. No, a good game by Derrick isn't enough to win in the Big East. And THAT is the problem. Derrick has a good game, the rest of the team plays like poo, we lose. So maybe it's time to look at the guys that are playing like poo in our losses rather than the guy who's upping his game when things get tough.