Paul declares for the draft (Maintaining Eligibility)

[RUDivision]

I think the trap that fans sometimes tend to fall into is to look only at the upside of the shiny new toy while at the same time only the negatives of the guys who have been here. Paul is not a superstar and Simpson is much more physically gifted. That being said, there were likely solid reasons that Simpson was not placed in the lead role earlier. For me it comes down to Derek being widely inconsistent from game to game (which would be expected for a freshman) as well as his lackluster/bad Assist to Turnover ratio of 1.6 - especially for a lead guard. Consider that starting PG's in the BIG are probably in the range of 2.5 - 3.0 Assists/TO. Even Mulchahy was close to 2.5. Bottom line is that Simpson presents a significant amount of physical talent but is also still progressing. Team would be well served to have Paul back. A mix of veteran experience with youth is generally a good thing in College Basketball.

Agree I love the mix ! The major reason for Paul’s turnover ratio is him dribbling the air out of the ball with his back to the basket. Throwing to a spot up shooter late or throwing it to cliff late.

Quick what was Paul’s best game last year?


Now why? He drove the ball to the basket made things happen. Looked to score and create opportunity for his teammates.


Now l! How many turnovers did he have? 🤔

So when a PG actually takes the ball to the basket, penetrates,and try’s to create opportunities and not stand around with ball they may make mistakes. With those mistakes come opportunities and good looks.

I hear you and agree the kid was not ready and to be fair probably still is not ready. Paul coming back being a mix of experience could help. If Pike uses them correctly.

Oh the answer above was 5

 

[NickRU714]

So when a PG actually takes the ball to the basket, penetrates,and try’s to create opportunities and not stand around with ball they may make mistakes. With those mistakes come opportunities and good looks.

Please pass that message along to HC Schiano and and OC KC!

 

[RUDivision]

Please pass that message along to HC Schiano and and OC KC!

Amen

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

You seem to be able to spin any game, no matter how well or how poorly the box score and result fit your argument, to make the same claim. As fluox said, at least try for some intellectual consistency.

It's pretty clear you just don't like Mulcahy's style of play and didn't understand his role within the team this year. That doesn't mean we'd be better off without him.

Let’s try the Purdue game instead… We’re nothing without that win. Paul dropped 16 points, 8 boards, 6 assists and 4 steals in that one. Pretty sure we don’t win that game without his 37 minutes and anyone who tries to argue otherwise would look foolish.

 

[RUDivision]

Let’s try the Purdue game instead… We’re nothing without that win. Paul dropped 16 points, 8 boards, 6 assists and 4 steals in that one. Pretty sure we don’t win that game without his 37 minutes and anyone who tries to argue otherwise would look foolish.

100 percent agree ! Huge game by him and deserves all the credit in the world for that game.

 

[RUDivision]

Let’s try the Purdue game instead… We’re nothing without that win. Paul dropped 16 points, 8 boards, 6 assists and 4 steals in that one. Pretty sure we don’t win that game without his 37 minutes and anyone who tries to argue otherwise would look foolish.

We’re also in the tournament with out the horrible turnover against Minnesota. Will call those 2 games a wash.

A great college player will have 90 percent or more of their games look like the stat line from that game . A very good player 75 percent, a good player 60 percent, an average player 50 percent, a contributor 33 percent and below that just not very good. Go look at last year and find all of his stat lines that look like the Purdue game.
I will spot you Indiana and MSU. The biggest Paul apologist may get to 1/3 of the games it’s actually closer to 25 percent. (Yes he had a 7-8 game stretch last year that is one of the best I have witnessed. The problem is 7/8 out of 34/35 isn’t enough).
I hope he comes back and is the Agressive player, seeks out smaller players on switches and dominates them in the post, shoots the open looks, drives downhill consistently. 4 years and 14-16 games isn’t good enough.

 

[RUChoppin]

In that game Paul got himself in foul trouble and did not play the majority of the minutes.

Mulcahy was on the floor more than Simpson in that game. Do you just throw out nonsense and hope people don't check?

That was a really bad game for him, but he still played 29 minutes of 40 (pretty sure 73% is more than a "majority of the minutes").

 

[RUDivision]

Mulcahy was on the floor more than Simpson in that game. Do you just throw out nonsense and hope people don't check?

That was a really bad game for him, but he still played 29 minutes of 40 (pretty sure 73% is more than a "majority of the minutes").

I can’t believe you keep coming back to this after you were thoroughly embarrassed.

What was my point of PG playing the majority of minutes AND having the ball in their hands.
I forget your an analytic numbers guy who doesn’t actually watch and then apply your numbers to what actually is happening. Since you went it looked it up why don’t you tell everyone how many minutes DS played. Paul had 29 and DS played???? Must be a huge difference in minutes played since you felt it important to respond and let us all know.

Now go into your spreadsheets and numbers and who now had the ball in their hands for the majority of those minutes?

I appreciate you strengthening my point.

No need to respond we all know we watched.

 

[RUChoppin]

I can’t believe you keep coming back to this after you were thoroughly embarrassed.

What was my point of PG playing the majority of minutes AND having the ball in their hands.
I forget your an analytic numbers guy who doesn’t actually watch and then apply your numbers to what actually is happening. Since you went it looked it up why don’t you tell everyone how many minutes DS played. Paul had 29 and DS played???? Must be a huge difference in minutes played since you felt it important to respond and let us all know.

Now go into your spreadsheets and numbers and who now had the ball in their hands for the majority of those minutes?

I appreciate you strengthening my point.

No need to respond we all know we watched.

Lol, go back on your meds.

You keep making nonsense arguments, and when challenged, go back on them and move the goal posts. I brought up PSU as a better example than Michigan for your argument, and you still couldn't make a cogent argument about it.

 

[fluoxetine]

Well, coach didn’t make the move all year until it was too late and cost us a bid in the NCAA tournament this year. Fact

Not evidence that we wouldn’t play this best lineup that gave us a chance to win? We all just witnessed a year where he did exactly that. Yes he made a change late but it was clear the team was dying. So yes I have fear Pike would go back to the well again out of pure loyalty. Hopefully not

Do you honestly believe he wasn't playing the lineup he thought gave us the best chance to win? Was he WRONG? Maybe. But his decisions, at the time they were made, really are not that obviously wrong. Does he have some bias for trusting a senior over a freshman? Probably.

Coming off of the Michigan St game we were 16-7 (8-4) and looking good. Paul had just had a great second half and carried us to victory. So, (I am including Hyatt here because he was the one who actually had his minutes cut for Simpson, not Mulcahy)

----

Indiana: Paul has a pretty bad game (31 mins, only 2 pts, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb, 1-4 shooting, 0-2 FT), Hyatt has a pretty good game (27 min, 9 pts, 2 ast, 0 to) as does Simpson (18 min, 7 pts, 1 ast). But this is just one game.

Illinois: Paul has a fine game (34 min, 12 pts, 2 ast, 2 to, 5-8 fg, 1-2 3p). Hyatt is good (30 min, 12 pts, 1 stl, 1 bk, 5 rebs). Simpson is quite bad (22 min, just 4 pts on 2-8 shooting, 0 asts, 1 to). So at this point, there is no reason to change anything.

Nebraska: Paul is bad (35 min, only 2 pts on 1-3 shooting, but 12 assists [yes, these matter], 3 to. Hyatt and Simpson both have good games (Hyatt 30 min, 24 pts and Simpson 19 mins, 10 pts on 5-7 shooting).

Wisconsin: Paul is good (36 min, only 6 pts, but 6 asts, only 1 to, 2 stls, and 3 reb). Hyatt is also good (34 min, only 8 pts but 3 ast, 2 blk, and 9 rebs). Simpson is not good (21 mins, only 2 pts, 2 ast, 1 to, 1 reb).

Michigan: Paul is ok (35 min, 9 pts on 3-8 shooting/1-2 3p/2-5 ft, 6 ast, 2 to, 1 stl, 3 reb). Simpson is also ok (11 min, 5 pts on 1-3 fg/3-4 ft, 1 to, 1 reb). Hyatt is terrible (28 min, 0 pts, 0-5 fg, 0-4 3p, 0-2 ft, 2 ast, 1 to, 1 reb). The players that cost us this game were Hyatt, Reiber, Palmquist, not Mulcahy or Simpson. Neither of the latter two were particularly good but they weren't horrible.

----

So at this point we've gone 1-4. Our established senior PG, Mulcahy, has had a bad game (loss), an okay game (loss), a bad game (loss), a good game (win), and another okay game (loss)

Simpson has had a good game (loss), quite bad game (loss), good game (loss), bad game (win), okay game (loss).

There is no obvious catalyst for change at this point. Mulcahy hasn't been playing great but it's not like Simpson is lighting it up behind him either.

----

Penn St.: Mulcahy has a dreadful game (29 min, 0 pts, 0-6 fg, 0-2 3pt, 1 ast, 1 to, 1 st, 2 reb, fouls out). Simpson is good (28 min, 16 pts, 6-14 fg, 0-1 3pt, 4-4 ft, 2 ast, 0 to, 6 reb). Hyatt is bad again (17 min, 3 pts, 1-6 fg, 1-4 3pt, 1 to).

----

This is the point where people think, in hindsight, there should have been a change made. I don't think this is nearly so obvious as people think. It's one game. Did Simpson have a good game? Yes. Had he really been showing that much prior to that game? No. It's also worth noting that he (Simpson) does not play well in the minutes he does get against Minnesota.

----

Minnesota: Mulcahy is again very bad (35 min, 6 pts, 2-8 shooting, 3 ast, 2 to, 7 reb). Simpson doesn't play that many minutes but also isn't good, similar to Mulcahy (12 min, 4 pts, 2-6 shooting, 1 ast, 2 reb). Hyatt plays pretty well (32 pts, 10 min, 4/8 fg, 2/5 3p, 3 ast) but obviously commits one infamous error.

Northwestern: Paul is bad again (34 min, 8 pts, 2/9 fg, 0/3 3p, 4/7 ft, 4 ast, 3 to, 5 reb). Simpson is okay (23 min, 12 pts, 5/13 fg, 0/3 3p, 2/3 ft, 2 ast, 1 to, 2 reb). Hyatt is also bad.

----

At this point Paul had had 3 consecutive bad games and we are in desperate need of a spark. Simpson had not really been that great but has been better than Paul. Hyatt has also been pretty bad.

-----

Michigan again: Simpson starts, Paul moved off ball, Hyatt relegated to bench. Simpson is fine, but not great (36 min, 13 pts, 6-16 fg, 0-4 3p, 3 ast, 0 to, 5 reb). Paul has a very good game (30 min, 8 pts, 3-6 fg, 2-3 3p, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb).

Purdue: Simpson is ok. Not good, ok. (27 min, 18 pts, 5/16 fg, 2/5 3p, 6/8 ft, only 1 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 2 reb). Mulcahy has another very good game (36 min, 10 pts, 4/6 fg, 2/2 3p, 5 ast, 0 to, 2 stl). We still lose.

Hofstra: Simpson is not good. (40 min, 19 pts, 8/16 shooting, 1/3 3pt, 2/3 ft, 4 ast, 4 to, 1 stl, 1 reb). Niether is Paul (40 min, 9 pts, 3/6 shooting, 0/2 3p, 5 ast, 2 to, 3 reb).

-----

The biggest difference when Paul moved off Paul was that PAUL started playing better. Simpson put up a decent amount of points by being a volume shooter basically. He had 8ast/7to in a 3 game stretch. He scored 50 points on 48 shots.

Paul in that stretech had 15 ast/5 to. He scored 27 points on 18 shots.

Was Derek Simpson at PG a breath of fresh air on an offense that struggled mightily to score points? Yes. Was he actually impressive in that 3 game stretch (we went 1-2 including a loss to Hofstra at home)? No. Not really. Paul played quite well off ball.

I think everyone would want him as a sub, with much less PT. “Jettison” is too strong. No matter where you play him, we have better players on O and D.

That's a perfectly reasonable opinion but clearly multiple posters want him to leave entirely.

 

[RUDivision]

Do you honestly believe he wasn't playing the lineup he thought gave us the best chance to win? Was he WRONG? Maybe. But his decisions, at the time they were made, really are not that obviously wrong. Does he have some bias for trusting a senior over a freshman? Probably.

Coming off of the Michigan St game we were 16-7 (8-4) and looking good. Paul had just had a great second half and carried us to victory. So, (I am including Hyatt here because he was the one who actually had his minutes cut for Simpson, not Mulcahy)

----

Indiana: Paul has a pretty bad game (31 mins, only 2 pts, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb, 1-4 shooting, 0-2 FT), Hyatt has a pretty good game (27 min, 9 pts, 2 ast, 0 to) as does Simpson (18 min, 7 pts, 1 ast). But this is just one game.

Illinois: Paul has a fine game (34 min, 12 pts, 2 ast, 2 to, 5-8 fg, 1-2 3p). Hyatt is good (30 min, 12 pts, 1 stl, 1 bk, 5 rebs). Simpson is quite bad (22 min, just 4 pts on 2-8 shooting, 0 asts, 1 to). So at this point, there is no reason to change anything.

Nebraska: Paul is bad (35 min, only 2 pts on 1-3 shooting, but 12 assists [yes, these matter], 3 to. Hyatt and Simpson both have good games (Hyatt 30 min, 24 pts and Simpson 19 mins, 10 pts on 5-7 shooting).

Wisconsin: Paul is good (36 min, only 6 pts, but 6 asts, only 1 to, 2 stls, and 3 reb). Hyatt is also good (34 min, only 8 pts but 3 ast, 2 blk, and 9 rebs). Simpson is not good (21 mins, only 2 pts, 2 ast, 1 to, 1 reb).

Michigan: Paul is ok (35 min, 9 pts on 3-8 shooting/1-2 3p/2-5 ft, 6 ast, 2 to, 1 stl, 3 reb). Simpson is also ok (11 min, 5 pts on 1-3 fg/3-4 ft, 1 to, 1 reb). Hyatt is terrible (28 min, 0 pts, 0-5 fg, 0-4 3p, 0-2 ft, 2 ast, 1 to, 1 reb). The players that cost us this game were Hyatt, Reiber, Palmquist, not Mulcahy or Simpson. Neither of the latter two were particularly good but they weren't horrible.

----

So at this point we've gone 1-4. Our established senior PG, Mulcahy, has had a bad game (loss), an okay game (loss), a bad game (loss), a good game (win), and another okay game (loss)

Simpson has had a good game (loss), quite bad game (loss), good game (loss), bad game (win), okay game (loss).

There is no obvious catalyst for change at this point. Mulcahy hasn't been playing great but it's not like Simpson is lighting it up behind him either.

----

Penn St.: Mulcahy has a dreadful game (29 min, 0 pts, 0-6 fg, 0-2 3pt, 1 ast, 1 to, 1 st, 2 reb, fouls out). Simpson is good (28 min, 16 pts, 6-14 fg, 0-1 3pt, 4-4 ft, 2 ast, 0 to, 6 reb). Hyatt is bad again (17 min, 3 pts, 1-6 fg, 1-4 3pt, 1 to).

----

This is the point where people think, in hindsight, there should have been a change made. I don't think this is nearly so obvious as people think. It's one game. Did Simpson have a good game? Yes. Had he really been showing that much prior to that game? No. It's also worth noting that he (Simpson) does not play well in the minutes he does get against Minnesota.

----

Minnesota: Mulcahy is again very bad (35 min, 6 pts, 2-8 shooting, 3 ast, 2 to, 7 reb). Simpson doesn't play that many minutes but also isn't good, similar to Mulcahy (12 min, 4 pts, 2-6 shooting, 1 ast, 2 reb). Hyatt plays pretty well (32 pts, 10 min, 4/8 fg, 2/5 3p, 3 ast) but obviously commits one infamous error.

Northwestern: Paul is bad again (34 min, 8 pts, 2/9 fg, 0/3 3p, 4/7 ft, 4 ast, 3 to, 5 reb). Simpson is okay (23 min, 12 pts, 5/13 fg, 0/3 3p, 2/3 ft, 2 ast, 1 to, 2 reb). Hyatt is also bad.

----

At this point Paul had had 3 consecutive bad games and we are in desperate need of a spark. Simpson had not really been that great but has been better than Paul. Hyatt has also been pretty bad.

-----

Michigan again: Simpson starts, Paul moved off ball, Hyatt relegated to bench. Simpson is fine, but not great (36 min, 13 pts, 6-16 fg, 0-4 3p, 3 ast, 0 to, 5 reb). Paul has a very good game (30 min, 8 pts, 3-6 fg, 2-3 3p, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb).

Purdue: Simpson is ok. Not good, ok. (27 min, 18 pts, 5/16 fg, 2/5 3p, 6/8 ft, only 1 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 2 reb). Mulcahy has another very good game (36 min, 10 pts, 4/6 fg, 2/2 3p, 5 ast, 0 to, 2 stl). We still lose.

Hofstra: Simpson is not good. (40 min, 19 pts, 8/16 shooting, 1/3 3pt, 2/3 ft, 4 ast, 4 to, 1 stl, 1 reb). Niether is Paul (40 min, 9 pts, 3/6 shooting, 0/2 3p, 5 ast, 2 to, 3 reb).

-----

The biggest difference when Paul moved off Paul was that PAUL started playing better. Simpson put up a decent amount of points by being a volume shooter basically. He had 8ast/7to in a 3 game stretch. He scored 50 points on 48 shots.

Paul in that stretech had 15 ast/5 to. He scored 27 points on 18 shots.

Was Derek Simpson at PG a breath of fresh air on an offense that struggled mightily to score points? Yes. Was he actually impressive in that 3 game stretch (we went 1-2 including a loss to Hofstra at home)? No. Not really. Paul played quite well off ball.


That's a perfectly reasonable opinion but clearly multiple posters want him to leave entirely.

I can’t read all of your nonsense.
19 points 4 assists on 50 percent shooting is not good? 😂 😂 😂 hahaha hahahaha stick to spreadsheets. If Paul had that line you would have him the college basketball hall of fame. NO HUMAN finds your assessment of talent or game numbers remotely believable. It’s even worse when your using games where DS is on the wing for your argument. (Lol)

Make sure you doing apples to apples. If your calculating Derek’s games make sure you using the games he was on the ball being played in his natural position.
Oh yea that was only the last few.

Now count up every game and your assessment of Paul’s performance in each of those games. How many were great?
Okay?
Etc

When your done let us know how many were great!! The the sun total of all of that work is ? OUT OF THE TOURNAMENT.

It’s okay we all know!

Take your scientific calculator and your chk nuggets and fries and go back to the kiddie table.

 

[RUChoppin]

Do you honestly believe he wasn't playing the lineup he thought gave us the best chance to win? Was he WRONG? Maybe. But his decisions, at the time they were made, really are not that obviously wrong. Does he have some bias for trusting a senior over a freshman? Probably.

Coming off of the Michigan St game we were 16-7 (8-4) and looking good. Paul had just had a great second half and carried us to victory. So, (I am including Hyatt here because he was the one who actually had his minutes cut for Simpson, not Mulcahy)

----

Indiana: Paul has a pretty bad game (31 mins, only 2 pts, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb, 1-4 shooting, 0-2 FT), Hyatt has a pretty good game (27 min, 9 pts, 2 ast, 0 to) as does Simpson (18 min, 7 pts, 1 ast). But this is just one game.

Illinois: Paul has a fine game (34 min, 12 pts, 2 ast, 2 to, 5-8 fg, 1-2 3p). Hyatt is good (30 min, 12 pts, 1 stl, 1 bk, 5 rebs). Simpson is quite bad (22 min, just 4 pts on 2-8 shooting, 0 asts, 1 to). So at this point, there is no reason to change anything.

Nebraska: Paul is bad (35 min, only 2 pts on 1-3 shooting, but 12 assists [yes, these matter], 3 to. Hyatt and Simpson both have good games (Hyatt 30 min, 24 pts and Simpson 19 mins, 10 pts on 5-7 shooting).

Wisconsin: Paul is good (36 min, only 6 pts, but 6 asts, only 1 to, 2 stls, and 3 reb). Hyatt is also good (34 min, only 8 pts but 3 ast, 2 blk, and 9 rebs). Simpson is not good (21 mins, only 2 pts, 2 ast, 1 to, 1 reb).

Michigan: Paul is ok (35 min, 9 pts on 3-8 shooting/1-2 3p/2-5 ft, 6 ast, 2 to, 1 stl, 3 reb). Simpson is also ok (11 min, 5 pts on 1-3 fg/3-4 ft, 1 to, 1 reb). Hyatt is terrible (28 min, 0 pts, 0-5 fg, 0-4 3p, 0-2 ft, 2 ast, 1 to, 1 reb). The players that cost us this game were Hyatt, Reiber, Palmquist, not Mulcahy or Simpson. Neither of the latter two were particularly good but they weren't horrible.

----

So at this point we've gone 1-4. Our established senior PG, Mulcahy, has had a bad game (loss), an okay game (loss), a bad game (loss), a good game (win), and another okay game (loss)

Simpson has had a good game (loss), quite bad game (loss), good game (loss), bad game (win), okay game (loss).

There is no obvious catalyst for change at this point. Mulcahy hasn't been playing great but it's not like Simpson is lighting it up behind him either.

----

Penn St.: Mulcahy has a dreadful game (29 min, 0 pts, 0-6 fg, 0-2 3pt, 1 ast, 1 to, 1 st, 2 reb, fouls out). Simpson is good (28 min, 16 pts, 6-14 fg, 0-1 3pt, 4-4 ft, 2 ast, 0 to, 6 reb). Hyatt is bad again (17 min, 3 pts, 1-6 fg, 1-4 3pt, 1 to).

----

This is the point where people think, in hindsight, there should have been a change made. I don't think this is nearly so obvious as people think. It's one game. Did Simpson have a good game? Yes. Had he really been showing that much prior to that game? No. It's also worth noting that he (Simpson) does not play well in the minutes he does get against Minnesota.

----

Minnesota: Mulcahy is again very bad (35 min, 6 pts, 2-8 shooting, 3 ast, 2 to, 7 reb). Simpson doesn't play that many minutes but also isn't good, similar to Mulcahy (12 min, 4 pts, 2-6 shooting, 1 ast, 2 reb). Hyatt plays pretty well (32 pts, 10 min, 4/8 fg, 2/5 3p, 3 ast) but obviously commits one infamous error.

Northwestern: Paul is bad again (34 min, 8 pts, 2/9 fg, 0/3 3p, 4/7 ft, 4 ast, 3 to, 5 reb). Simpson is okay (23 min, 12 pts, 5/13 fg, 0/3 3p, 2/3 ft, 2 ast, 1 to, 2 reb). Hyatt is also bad.

----

At this point Paul had had 3 consecutive bad games and we are in desperate need of a spark. Simpson had not really been that great but has been better than Paul. Hyatt has also been pretty bad.

-----

Michigan again: Simpson starts, Paul moved off ball, Hyatt relegated to bench. Simpson is fine, but not great (36 min, 13 pts, 6-16 fg, 0-4 3p, 3 ast, 0 to, 5 reb). Paul has a very good game (30 min, 8 pts, 3-6 fg, 2-3 3p, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb).

Purdue: Simpson is ok. Not good, ok. (27 min, 18 pts, 5/16 fg, 2/5 3p, 6/8 ft, only 1 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 2 reb). Mulcahy has another very good game (36 min, 10 pts, 4/6 fg, 2/2 3p, 5 ast, 0 to, 2 stl). We still lose.

Hofstra: Simpson is not good. (40 min, 19 pts, 8/16 shooting, 1/3 3pt, 2/3 ft, 4 ast, 4 to, 1 stl, 1 reb). Niether is Paul (40 min, 9 pts, 3/6 shooting, 0/2 3p, 5 ast, 2 to, 3 reb).

-----

The biggest difference when Paul moved off Paul was that PAUL started playing better. Simpson put up a decent amount of points by being a volume shooter basically. He had 8ast/7to in a 3 game stretch. He scored 50 points on 48 shots.

Paul in that stretech had 15 ast/5 to. He scored 27 points on 18 shots.

Was Derek Simpson at PG a breath of fresh air on an offense that struggled mightily to score points? Yes. Was he actually impressive in that 3 game stretch (we went 1-2 including a loss to Hofstra at home)? No. Not really. Paul played quite well off ball.


That's a perfectly reasonable opinion but clearly multiple posters want him to leave entirely.

This.

Mulcahy struggled toward the end of the season, and some things finally started to click for Simpson. We were better when they were both on the floor, giving us both dribble penetration/ foot speed and maturity/ distribution. That came at the expense of Hyatt's minutes.

We are better next year if we have both of them on court together. We don't yet know what Davis is going to bring, or what a portal transfer might bring, especially at the start of the season. We also don't know how long it will take the newcomers to get acclimated to pike's culture, and having more veterans in the locker room would help that.

 

[RUDivision]

Lol, go back on your meds.

You keep making nonsense arguments, and when challenged, go back on them and move the goal posts. I brought up PSU as a better example than Michigan for your argument, and you still couldn't make a cogent argument about it.

Not moving the goal posts and you did not answer the question. What was this large Delta this overwhelmingly large statistic you felt we all needed to know? Paul played 29 minutes the majority and DS must have played 10-12 min that game. It could never be 28 min plus ? No that would not make sense at all.

 

[fluoxetine]

It’s even worse when your using games where DS is on the wing for your argument. (Lol)

Make sure you doing apples to apples. If your calculating Derek’s games make sure you using the games he was on the ball being played in his natural position.
Oh yea that was only the last few.

Okay, let's look at the last 3 games. (Again, noting that we LOST TWO OUT OF THREE OF THESE GAMES).

Michigan
P. Mulcahy - 30 min, 8 pts, 3-6 fg, 2-3 3p, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb
D. Simpson - 36 min, 13 pts, 6-16 fg, 0-4 3p, 3 ast, 2 stl, 5 reb

Purdue
P. Mulcahy - 36 min, 10 pts, 4-6 fg, 2-2 3p, 5 ast, 2 stl, 4 reb
D. Simpson - 27 min, 18 pts, 5-16 fg, 2-5 3p, 1 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 2 reb

Hofstra
P. Mulcahy - 40 min, 9 pts, 3-6 fg, 0-2 3p, 5 ast, 2 to, 3 reb
D. Simpson - 40 min, 19 pts, 8-16 fg, 1-3 3p, 4 ast, 4 to, 1 reb

Total
P. Mulcahy - 106 min, 27 pts, 10-18 fg, 4-7 3p, 3-4 ft, 15 ast, 5 to, 5 stl, 12 reb
D. Simpson - 103 min, 50 pts, 19-48 fg, 3-12 3p, 9-13 ft, 8 ast, 7 to, 5 stl, 11 reb

Simpson's stats are not impressive. They aren't particularly different than what he was doing on the wing, he just played a lot more. He scored points because he put up a lot of shots.

What @MiloTalon13 has been saying is 100% correct; if Simpson is putting up the same numbers next year and is our starting PG we are not going to be good.

 

[RUDivision]

Okay, let's look at the last 3 games. (Again, noting that we LOST TWO OUT OF THREE OF THESE GAMES).

Michigan
P. Mulcahy - 30 min, 8 pts, 3-6 fg, 2-3 3p, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb
D. Simpson - 36 min, 13 pts, 6-16 fg, 0-4 3p, 3 ast, 2 stl, 5 reb

Purdue
P. Mulcahy - 36 min, 10 pts, 4-6 fg, 2-2 3p, 5 ast, 2 stl, 4 reb
D. Simpson - 27 min, 18 pts, 5-16 fg, 2-5 3p, 1 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 2 reb

Hofstra
P. Mulcahy - 40 min, 9 pts, 3-6 fg, 0-2 3p, 5 ast, 2 to, 3 reb
D. Simpson - 40 min, 19 pts, 8-16 fg, 1-3 3p, 4 ast, 4 to, 1 reb

Total
P. Mulcahy - 106 min, 27 pts, 10-18 fg, 4-7 3p, 3-4 ft, 15 ast, 5 to, 5 stl, 12 reb
D. Simpson - 103 min, 50 pts, 19-48 fg, 3-12 3p, 9-13 ft, 8 ast, 7 to, 5 stl, 11 reb

Simpson's stats are not impressive. They aren't particularly different than what he was doing on the wing, he just played a lot more. He scored points because he put up a lot of shots.

What @MiloTalon13 has been saying is 100% correct; if Simpson is putting up the same numbers next year and is our starting PG we are not going to be good.

Ok let’s agree his efficiency has to improve no doubt. His ability to get to the rim and force double teams creates spacing for Cam and Cliff ( hopefully returns). If we get a senior portal transfer then perfect DS can play 6th man.

We need Gavin to be the truth. We need Wolfe to take a big step like Cliff did year 1 vs year 2. We need the other incoming freshman to provide depth.

I will take the upside of the freshman over the 5 th year who has given us below avg play. (If you want to say avg ok I will meet you there reluctantly)

Does or will DS give us more then 6.8 pts and 3.8 assists next year? That’s what we were given for a career to date and everyone wants to defend. DS puts up those numbers with his sneakers tied together.

Not sure why we’re even debating.

To move on it’s 1 person’s opinion your entitled to yours.

Lastly, i am truly impressed with your ability to turn around that data. No BS ! I think you provide value in your numbers approach. How you apply them or understand them I struggle with. Once again 1 persons opinion. Look forward to more hoops discussions.

 

[RUChoppin]

Okay, let's look at the last 3 games. (Again, noting that we LOST TWO OUT OF THREE OF THESE GAMES).

Michigan
P. Mulcahy - 30 min, 8 pts, 3-6 fg, 2-3 3p, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb
D. Simpson - 36 min, 13 pts, 6-16 fg, 0-4 3p, 3 ast, 2 stl, 5 reb

Purdue
P. Mulcahy - 36 min, 10 pts, 4-6 fg, 2-2 3p, 5 ast, 2 stl, 4 reb
D. Simpson - 27 min, 18 pts, 5-16 fg, 2-5 3p, 1 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 2 reb

Hofstra
P. Mulcahy - 40 min, 9 pts, 3-6 fg, 0-2 3p, 5 ast, 2 to, 3 reb
D. Simpson - 40 min, 19 pts, 8-16 fg, 1-3 3p, 4 ast, 4 to, 1 reb

Total
P. Mulcahy - 106 min, 27 pts, 10-18 fg, 4-7 3p, 3-4 ft, 15 ast, 5 to, 5 stl, 12 reb
D. Simpson - 103 min, 50 pts, 19-48 fg, 3-12 3p, 9-13 ft, 8 ast, 7 to, 5 stl, 11 reb

Simpson's stats are not impressive. They aren't particularly different than what he was doing on the wing, he just played a lot more. He scored points because he put up a lot of shots.

What @MiloTalon13 has been saying is 100% correct; if Simpson is putting up the same numbers next year and is our starting PG we are not going to be good.

Again, this.

But he's either incapable of understanding or being intentionally obtuse.

 

[fluoxetine]

I will take the upside of the freshman over the 5 th year who has given us below avg play. (If you want to say avg ok I will meet you there reluctantly)

Not sure it's either/or though. I think it's pretty clear that Mulcahy is better when he isn't the primary ball handler, and Simpson was just fine, certainly not any worse as the primary handler than he was off the ball. Mulcahy's minutes weren't given to Simpson. Hyatt's were. And then Simpson was also put on the ball while Mulcahy was moved to the wing.

So in a world where we had the same roster (god forbid) the real choice isn't Simpson vs. Mulcahy, it's more of a minute split between Mulcahy, Simpson, and Hyatt. And I would argue that the decision made at the end of the year (give the minutes to Mulcahy and Simpson, with Simpson as the primary ball handler) was correct.

As to how that feeds into next year.. I think it's clear we don't want Mulcahy running the point as the primary ball handler, at least not the majority of the time. He could maybe take that spot sometimes when Simpson is on the bench. As far as minutes go it will depend on factors. But I think it's clear that Mulcahy is a valuable piece even if he's not what you want as a primary starting point.

Lastly, i am truly impressed with your ability to turn around that data. No BS ! I think you provide value in your numbers approach. How you apply them or understand them I struggle with. Once again 1 persons opinion. Look forward to more hoops discussions.

Appreciate the more reasoned response here (though admittedly I brought some of the others on myself by calling you a troll a bunch.. pretty sure I had you confused with someone else, my bad). I do agree there was an increased flow to the offense with Simpson at point btw that doesn't show up directly in his stats.

 

[MiloTalon13]

Okay, let's look at the last 3 games. (Again, noting that we LOST TWO OUT OF THREE OF THESE GAMES).

Michigan
P. Mulcahy - 30 min, 8 pts, 3-6 fg, 2-3 3p, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb
D. Simpson - 36 min, 13 pts, 6-16 fg, 0-4 3p, 3 ast, 2 stl, 5 reb

Purdue
P. Mulcahy - 36 min, 10 pts, 4-6 fg, 2-2 3p, 5 ast, 2 stl, 4 reb
D. Simpson - 27 min, 18 pts, 5-16 fg, 2-5 3p, 1 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 2 reb

Hofstra
P. Mulcahy - 40 min, 9 pts, 3-6 fg, 0-2 3p, 5 ast, 2 to, 3 reb
D. Simpson - 40 min, 19 pts, 8-16 fg, 1-3 3p, 4 ast, 4 to, 1 reb

Total
P. Mulcahy - 106 min, 27 pts, 10-18 fg, 4-7 3p, 3-4 ft, 15 ast, 5 to, 5 stl, 12 reb
D. Simpson - 103 min, 50 pts, 19-48 fg, 3-12 3p, 9-13 ft, 8 ast, 7 to, 5 stl, 11 reb

Simpson's stats are not impressive. They aren't particularly different than what he was doing on the wing, he just played a lot more. He scored points because he put up a lot of shots.

What @MiloTalon13 has been saying is 100% correct; if Simpson is putting up the same numbers next year and is our starting PG we are not going to be good.

Thank you! Furthermore, I'm sure Pike and the staff know this. They have all the stats we have and a ton more.

 

[RUDivision]

Not sure it's either/or though. I think it's pretty clear that Mulcahy is better when he isn't the primary ball handler, and Simpson was just fine, certainly not any worse as the primary handler than he was off the ball. Mulcahy's minutes weren't given to Simpson. Hyatt's were. And then Simpson was also put on the ball while Mulcahy was moved to the wing.

So in a world where we had the same roster (god forbid) the real choice isn't Simpson vs. Mulcahy, it's more of a minute split between Mulcahy, Simpson, and Hyatt. And I would argue that the decision made at the end of the year (give the minutes to Mulcahy and Simpson, with Simpson as the primary ball handler) was correct.

As to how that feeds into next year.. I think it's clear we don't want Mulcahy running the point as the primary ball handler, at least not the majority of the time. He could maybe take that spot sometimes when Simpson is on the bench. As far as minutes go it will depend on factors. But I think it's clear that Mulcahy is a valuable piece even if he's not what you want as a primary starting point.


Appreciate the more reasoned response here (though admittedly I brought some of the others on myself by calling you a troll a bunch.. pretty sure I had you confused with someone else, my bad). I do agree there was an increased flow to the offense with Simpson at point btw that doesn't show up directly in his stats.

All good you continue to seek me out and that’s fine I enjoy an intellectual conversation. Your going to lead with numbers first and then eye test second. I am going to rely on player ability, potential, and what I see first and numbers second.
Agreed with your point about next year. If Paul comes back and plays agressive, shoots, posts up, drives to the hoop. Then he’ll yes let him handle the ball . However i have seen that show too many times and don’t need a rerun.

 

[fluoxetine]

All good you continue to seek me out and that’s fine I enjoy an intellectual conversation. Your going to lead with numbers first and then eye test second. I am going to rely on player ability, potential, and what I see first and numbers second.
Agreed with your point about next year. If Paul comes back and plays agressive, shoots, posts up, drives to the hoop. Then he’ll yes let him handle the ball . However i have seen that show too many times and don’t need a rerun.

I would also argue that Paul's style would be more palatable on a team with more shooters. Part of the service that Simpson was providing at the end of the year was simply being willing to put up those shots and make the defense defend him. Having Paul being SO pass-first just wasn't really working when your lineup has.. basically just Spencer as a real offensive threat, and even he can't really create his own shot. But on a better offensive lineup it could work better imo.

 

[MiloTalon13]

I would also argue that Paul's style would be more palatable on a team with more shooters. Part of the service that Simpson was providing at the end of the year was simply being willing to put up those shots and make the defense defend him. Having Paul being SO pass-first just wasn't really working when your lineup has.. basically just Spencer as a real offensive threat, and even he can't really create his own shot. But on a better offensive lineup it could work better imo.

Yes, if you replace Caleb with a high volume, fairly efficient shooter, Paul becomes more valuable - IF he plays just like he did last season.
Taking that another step further, Simpson becomes less valuable - IF he plays just like he did last season.

Hopefully, the team offense changes, they both play better, fit better into our new offensive approach and are both valuable players.

 

[RUDivision]

I would also argue that Paul's style would be more palatable on a team with more shooters. Part of the service that Simpson was providing at the end of the year was simply being willing to put up those shots and make the defense defend him. Having Paul being SO pass-first just wasn't really working when your lineup has.. basically just Spencer as a real offensive threat, and even he can't really create his own shot. But on a better offensive lineup it could work better imo.

Fair but Paul had Ron and Geo and only avg under 6 assits. Now if DS had more shooters would he pass more? Was he told to score the ball because our offense was so stagnant and that’s why the volume shooting? All hypothetical and let’s hope they both come back and play great

 

[RUChoppin]

Yes, if you replace Caleb with a high volume, fairly efficient shooter, Paul becomes more valuable - IF he plays just like he did last season.
Taking that another step further, Simpson becomes less valuable - IF he plays just like he did last season.

Hopefully, the team offense changes, they both play better, fit better into our new offensive approach and are both valuable players.

Yes, swapping out McConnell for a high percentage shooter like Griffiths would give more options on the perimeter, and limit a defense's ability to clamp down on just one guy.

Simpson, Spencer, Griffiths, Mulcahy, Omoruyi in a 4-out-1-in would give a lot of options offensively.

 

[RUInsanity]

Agree I love the mix ! The major reason for Paul’s turnover ratio is him dribbling the air out of the ball with his back to the basket. Throwing to a spot up shooter late or throwing it to cliff late.

Quick what was Paul’s best game last year?


Now why? He drove the ball to the basket made things happen. Looked to score and create opportunity for his teammates.


Now l! How many turnovers did he have? 🤔

So when a PG actually takes the ball to the basket, penetrates,and try’s to create opportunities and not stand around with ball they may make mistakes. With those mistakes come opportunities and good looks.

I hear you and agree the kid was not ready and to be fair probably still is not ready. Paul coming back being a mix of experience could help. If Pike uses them correctly.

Oh the answer above was 5

You obviously did not pay attention to how out of control DS played at times even when not playing the point. Your entire argument is built on the tenet that DS should have played the point earlier in the season......DS certainly has athhletic gifts and talent but it really does not take genius to understand why Pike waited. PS.....one game stats do not represent a viable season trend.

 

[RUDivision]

You obviously did not pay attention to how out of control DS played at times even when not playing the point. Your entire argument is built on the tenet that DS should have played the point earlier in the season......DS certainly has athhletic gifts and talent but it really does not take genius to understand why Pike waited. PS.....one game stats do not represent a viable season trend.

The same genius who didn’t make the change and missed the NCAA tournament? Or watched him win the PSU game or the UM game,

It’s all good the reality is he will be the starting PG next year so no reason to argue or debate. The future is in great hands

 

[RUsojo]

Look, Paul isn’t some star. He makes stupid mistakes. He shouldn’t be our PG. But people acting like he doesn’t do anything productive on the floor is insane. He’s a good passer, steady ball handler, can make open threes and is a good defender that knows our defense well. I’ve advocated for getting an actual PG or Guard so Paul doesn’t have to start. But he still can be a pretty useful player and we probably aren’t getting a better player in transfer portal. I agree with the idea of moving past the idea of him being our star. But if he wants to be back he absolutely gets a spot.

If Paul wants to be our Charlie Conway QBs come back but give up his spot and play half the minutes everyone would be fine with that.

No one thinks it would happen though

 

[RUsojo]

A bunch of people seem to have the following logic train:

Paul could be valuable in the right role, but is detrimental in other roles => Pike would never play him in the correct role => Paul should be asked to leave

If that is actually correct (it's not), what we have is a coaching problem, not a Mulcahy problem.

Well well well

No but it’s definitely a combo of both

 

[RUInsanity]

The same genius who didn’t make the change and missed the NCAA tournament? Or watched him win the PSU game or the UM game,

It’s all good the reality is he will be the starting PG next year so no reason to argue or debate. The future is in great hands

There was really no need for the first paragraph......you just can't seem to let go of whatever your agenda is (and perhaps tjat includes alternate screen names). If you've ever been involved or coached sports at any level, you would realize that nothing is perfectly controllable nor do results work out perfectly as planned.

You complaining about Pike or Paul and replacing the game moves/strategy previously made in your head does not equate to changing outcomes. It just gives you something to point fingers at and continue to complain about.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Fair but Paul had Ron and Geo and only avg under 6 assits. Now if DS had more shooters would he pass more? Was he told to score the ball because our offense was so stagnant and that’s why the volume shooting? All hypothetical and let’s hope they both come back and play great

Geo wasn’t exactly a high percentage shooter either. But regardless, Paul was more effective last year, and he was even more effective before we lost Mag. He’s not a guy who can create with limited offensive options around him so when our options dwindled it really impacted his game. Plus who knows the deal with his shoulder.

The bottom line though is - we don’t win the 2 most important games - @ Purdue and @ NW (12 points, 6 boards, 6 assists, 2 steals and block) without Paul. If those 2 games are losses, we’re not even on the radar for post season so the Minny game you guys are debating doesn’t matter. To say Paul wouldn’t be an asset to return next year is ridiculous. We will not secure greater than 2 players in the portal (or incoming frosh not yet recruited for 2023-24) who will be better than him next season. The chance of that happening rounds to zero.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I’ll add that while I’m not a huge Hyatt fan, it’s also unlikely that we’ll secure 3 portal guys / or additional frosh not yet committed who would contribute more than him next year either.

The difference (and it’s a big difference) is that Hyatt is not versatile at all. Assuming Paul returns, there is no chance (not even slight) that Hyatt be one of our top 4 options next season to play 1-3 in our rotation (Cam, Simpson, Paul and even Mag would all be way ahead at him at every spot) - he’s indesputably the worst perimeter defender and ball handler of the group. He’s not big enough to play 5. So that leaves only the 4. He’s a low percentage shooter who rebounds and defends well enough in the post to see time at the 4. So he could end up sharing the 4 spot with Mag playing 20+ minutes or so, or he could end up playing Miller level minutes. If that happened, we’d be better off not having him on the team. From a chemistry perspective - it would be tough having a guy’s PT dwindle like that. Paul would not play under 20 minutes under any circumstance based on his ability to fill minutes 1-4.

 

[Shelby65]

Do you honestly believe he wasn't playing the lineup he thought gave us the best chance to win? Was he WRONG? Maybe. But his decisions, at the time they were made, really are not that obviously wrong. Does he have some bias for trusting a senior over a freshman? Probably.

Coming off of the Michigan St game we were 16-7 (8-4) and looking good. Paul had just had a great second half and carried us to victory. So, (I am including Hyatt here because he was the one who actually had his minutes cut for Simpson, not Mulcahy)

----

Indiana: Paul has a pretty bad game (31 mins, only 2 pts, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb, 1-4 shooting, 0-2 FT), Hyatt has a pretty good game (27 min, 9 pts, 2 ast, 0 to) as does Simpson (18 min, 7 pts, 1 ast). But this is just one game.

Illinois: Paul has a fine game (34 min, 12 pts, 2 ast, 2 to, 5-8 fg, 1-2 3p). Hyatt is good (30 min, 12 pts, 1 stl, 1 bk, 5 rebs). Simpson is quite bad (22 min, just 4 pts on 2-8 shooting, 0 asts, 1 to). So at this point, there is no reason to change anything.

Nebraska: Paul is bad (35 min, only 2 pts on 1-3 shooting, but 12 assists [yes, these matter], 3 to. Hyatt and Simpson both have good games (Hyatt 30 min, 24 pts and Simpson 19 mins, 10 pts on 5-7 shooting).

Wisconsin: Paul is good (36 min, only 6 pts, but 6 asts, only 1 to, 2 stls, and 3 reb). Hyatt is also good (34 min, only 8 pts but 3 ast, 2 blk, and 9 rebs). Simpson is not good (21 mins, only 2 pts, 2 ast, 1 to, 1 reb).

Michigan: Paul is ok (35 min, 9 pts on 3-8 shooting/1-2 3p/2-5 ft, 6 ast, 2 to, 1 stl, 3 reb). Simpson is also ok (11 min, 5 pts on 1-3 fg/3-4 ft, 1 to, 1 reb). Hyatt is terrible (28 min, 0 pts, 0-5 fg, 0-4 3p, 0-2 ft, 2 ast, 1 to, 1 reb). The players that cost us this game were Hyatt, Reiber, Palmquist, not Mulcahy or Simpson. Neither of the latter two were particularly good but they weren't horrible.

----

So at this point we've gone 1-4. Our established senior PG, Mulcahy, has had a bad game (loss), an okay game (loss), a bad game (loss), a good game (win), and another okay game (loss)

Simpson has had a good game (loss), quite bad game (loss), good game (loss), bad game (win), okay game (loss).

There is no obvious catalyst for change at this point. Mulcahy hasn't been playing great but it's not like Simpson is lighting it up behind him either.

----

Penn St.: Mulcahy has a dreadful game (29 min, 0 pts, 0-6 fg, 0-2 3pt, 1 ast, 1 to, 1 st, 2 reb, fouls out). Simpson is good (28 min, 16 pts, 6-14 fg, 0-1 3pt, 4-4 ft, 2 ast, 0 to, 6 reb). Hyatt is bad again (17 min, 3 pts, 1-6 fg, 1-4 3pt, 1 to).

----

This is the point where people think, in hindsight, there should have been a change made. I don't think this is nearly so obvious as people think. It's one game. Did Simpson have a good game? Yes. Had he really been showing that much prior to that game? No. It's also worth noting that he (Simpson) does not play well in the minutes he does get against Minnesota.

----

Minnesota: Mulcahy is again very bad (35 min, 6 pts, 2-8 shooting, 3 ast, 2 to, 7 reb). Simpson doesn't play that many minutes but also isn't good, similar to Mulcahy (12 min, 4 pts, 2-6 shooting, 1 ast, 2 reb). Hyatt plays pretty well (32 pts, 10 min, 4/8 fg, 2/5 3p, 3 ast) but obviously commits one infamous error.

Northwestern: Paul is bad again (34 min, 8 pts, 2/9 fg, 0/3 3p, 4/7 ft, 4 ast, 3 to, 5 reb). Simpson is okay (23 min, 12 pts, 5/13 fg, 0/3 3p, 2/3 ft, 2 ast, 1 to, 2 reb). Hyatt is also bad.

----

At this point Paul had had 3 consecutive bad games and we are in desperate need of a spark. Simpson had not really been that great but has been better than Paul. Hyatt has also been pretty bad.

-----

Michigan again: Simpson starts, Paul moved off ball, Hyatt relegated to bench. Simpson is fine, but not great (36 min, 13 pts, 6-16 fg, 0-4 3p, 3 ast, 0 to, 5 reb). Paul has a very good game (30 min, 8 pts, 3-6 fg, 2-3 3p, 5 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 5 reb).

Purdue: Simpson is ok. Not good, ok. (27 min, 18 pts, 5/16 fg, 2/5 3p, 6/8 ft, only 1 ast, 3 to, 3 stl, 2 reb). Mulcahy has another very good game (36 min, 10 pts, 4/6 fg, 2/2 3p, 5 ast, 0 to, 2 stl). We still lose.

Hofstra: Simpson is not good. (40 min, 19 pts, 8/16 shooting, 1/3 3pt, 2/3 ft, 4 ast, 4 to, 1 stl, 1 reb). Niether is Paul (40 min, 9 pts, 3/6 shooting, 0/2 3p, 5 ast, 2 to, 3 reb).

-----

The biggest difference when Paul moved off Paul was that PAUL started playing better. Simpson put up a decent amount of points by being a volume shooter basically. He had 8ast/7to in a 3 game stretch. He scored 50 points on 48 shots.

Paul in that stretech had 15 ast/5 to. He scored 27 points on 18 shots.

Was Derek Simpson at PG a breath of fresh air on an offense that struggled mightily to score points? Yes. Was he actually impressive in that 3 game stretch (we went 1-2 including a loss to Hofstra at home)? No. Not really. Paul played quite well off ball.


That's a perfectly reasonable opinion but clearly multiple posters want him to leave entirely.

Nah, i don't think people necessarily want him gone entirely. they only say that because they don't believe Pike would significantly cut minutes (favoritism/loyalty). so between those options: 1)undeserved starter status and 2) sayonara...they prefer choice 2, as do I.

 

[Shelby65]

I’ll add that while I’m not a huge Hyatt fan, it’s also unlikely that we’ll secure 3 portal guys / or additional frosh not yet committed who would contribute more than him next year either.

The difference (and it’s a big difference) is that Hyatt is not versatile at all. Assuming Paul returns, there is no chance (not even slight) that Hyatt be one of our top 4 options next season to play 1-3 in our rotation (Cam, Simpson, Paul and even Mag would all be way ahead at him at every spot) - he’s indesputably the worst perimeter defender and ball handler of the group. He’s not big enough to play 5. So that leaves only the 4. He’s a low percentage shooter who rebounds and defends well enough in the post to see time at the 4. So he could end up sharing the 4 spot with Mag playing 20+ minutes or so, or he could end up playing Miller level minutes. If that happened, we’d be better off not having him on the team. From a chemistry perspective - it would be tough having a guy’s PT dwindle like that. Paul would not play under 20 minutes under any circumstance based on his ability to fill minutes 1-4.

i aggressively dispute that Hyatt is the 'worst perimeter defender'. Opponents blow past Paul as if he's chained to the floor. you may be right about Hyatt's ball-handling, but c'mon now. You haven't been paying attention if you think Paul plays perimeter D in any way, shape or form.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

i aggressively dispute that Hyatt is the 'worst perimeter defender'. Opponents blow past Paul as if he's chained to the floor. you may be right about Hyatt's ball-handling, but c'mon now. You haven't been paying attention if you think Paul plays perimeter D in any way, shape or form.

He is a worse perimeter defender. If he wasn’t Pike would have played him there when he was in the game on defense and shifted Paul to a slower player. He never did that. It doesn’t matter how bad Paul looked, Pike was in practice so apparently Hyatt did not show any reason to believe he would’ve been a better choice to guard the 3 vs the 4.

 

[Shelby65]

shifting not so simple. You can't just hide players. you don't understand what you are seeing. other teams set screens causing defenders to switch and create mismatches. Paul was always the desired mismatch. Plus, in today's game, there's little difference between a 3 and a 4. Not a real distinction anymore. That's not how defense works. Both are usually perimeter players. Can you tell me who UCONN's 3 is ? Or 4 ?

Point is, Paul probably got windburn from the constant blow bys. Hyatt has his limitations, but that's one thing he's better at than Paul.

 

[fluoxetine]

We were the #6 defense.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

shifting not so simple. You can't just hide players. you don't understand what you are seeing. other teams set screens causing defenders to switch and create mismatches. Paul was always the desired mismatch. Plus, in today's game, there's little difference between a 3 and a 4. Not a real distinction anymore. That's not how defense works. Both are usually perimeter players. Can you tell me who UCONN's 3 is ? Or 4 ?

Point is, Paul probably got windburn from the constant blow bys. Hyatt has his limitations, but that's one thing he's better at than Paul.

Hyatt is not a good defensive player. He doesn’t do anything well on defense. Sometimes Paul over helps and gets burned for it. On the other hand, he gets a good number of steals from his gambles. Hyatt isn’t good at anything on defense. Regardless - there is no scenerio where Hyatt will play over Paul anywhere other than possibly at the 4 as a backup, starter, etc. and he doesn’t deserve to. The only thing he does better than Paul is block a few more shots

 

[Shelby65]

You're contradicting yourself....you're backtracking from "perimeter defender'. Yes, he does gamble and double team in the lane. But on the perimeter he can't defend at all.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I never said he’s “good”. Paul is servicable vs. the experiment with playing Hyatt (and Jaden Jones) chunks of minutes on the perimeter. Pike realized those 2 guys were unplayable there.

 

[RUDivision]

Geo wasn’t exactly a high percentage shooter either. But regardless, Paul was more effective last year, and he was even more effective before we lost Mag. He’s not a guy who can create with limited offensive options around him so when our options dwindled it really impacted his game. Plus who knows the deal with his shoulder.

The bottom line though is - we don’t win the 2 most important games - @ Purdue and @ NW (12 points, 6 boards, 6 assists, 2 steals and block) without Paul. If those 2 games are losses, we’re not even on the radar for post season so the Minny game you guys are debating doesn’t matter. To say Paul wouldn’t be an asset to return next year is ridiculous. We will not secure greater than 2 players in the portal (or incoming frosh not yet recruited for 2023-24) who will be better than him next season. The chance of that happening rounds to zero.

Agreed but Geo did finish top 6 or 7 in RU scoring history and Ron did sign a two way . Of course someone playing the 1 is going to be better with more offensive weapons any pg would. His play was hurt when Mag got hurt because his offensive options dwindled??? Mag is not MJ I understand A lot of us and the media made our demise out to an injury. It was a piece of the problem. Paul will be back playing the 3/4 and help in a Swiss army role and I think that’s great.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

You're contradicting yourself....you're backtracking from "perimeter defender'. Yes, he does gamble and double team in the lane. But on the perimeter he can't defend at all.

Agreed but Geo did finish top 6 or 7 in RU scoring history and Ron did sign a two way . Of course someone playing the 1 is going to be better with more offensive weapons any pg would. His play was hurt when Mag got hurt because his offensive options dwindled??? Mag is not MJ I understand A lot of us and the media made our demise out to an injury. It was a piece of the problem. Paul will be back playing the 3/4 and help in a Swiss army role and I think that’s great.

No - his play was impacted because he got frustrated with not being able to make anything happen as a distributor and started forcing the ball in to Cliff. It wasn’t a matter of Mag making us a better halfcourt offense - he finished in transition and cleaned up the glass to help prevent the scoring drouts that fed Paul’s frustration. He’s to blame for not keeping his composure. Nobody is saying he’s a perfect PG but when the offense doesn’t completely stall he’s certainly at least an average option at PG for stretches. You can’t just throw out all the good games he’s had in his career.

The difference with Simpson at point late season was that he could create in iso. That made him more effective late season but next year is a new year. Let’s see what the surrounding cast looks like. Paul even got some minutes at point as a frosh. That team had JY in addition to Geo and Caleb as options to play point and he still played over 18 mpg. On a deep team AS A FROSH. There was no loyalty there. He earned that time. And some of you think he should be an 8 minute reserve as a super senior. Unreal.