I went back and looked at two games in the past that I have on dvd. The Duke game and the, Big East Championship game, two years ago when we beat Pitt. The thing that stood out to me was #1 in the Pitt game, Hibbs was the first option. You can see it from the beginning of the game. Pitt guarded our back door cuts during the beginning of the game. But pretty much Hibbs had his way against Gray. He was the first option, there was no jacking of three's, and eveyone played as a unit. And in the Duke game we just back-doored them to death. The cuts were crisp, and the guys wanted that game, you can tell. Something missing form this squad, even after playing Depaul this past Saturday. Once again they were just going through the motions.
To make a long story short for me, and this is me as a fan, JTIII does not need to recruit any Mcdonalds all-americans, or no top 10 high school kid who already has his mind set on the league. we need guys like Green, Wallace, Crawford, Owens, HIbbert, those type of guys. They played smart, they played within the system, and the main thing they played as a Da** TEAM. No individualism, no look at me I made sports center last night. I mean dont get me wrong, I would'nt mind having one or two on the team, but to many egos hurt and pull down any team. So if III gets a guy no one has heard of, hey he will coach him up, and those guys who stick around 3 to 4 years will be the foundation to rebuild the program again. But what I came away from both of those games was the fact that, a team could not concentrate on one particular player. IF they doubled up on Roy, we went else where, and the shot was a good option. If they concetrated on Jeff, then we had Wallace, Sapp, or Owens open for a three, we made teams pay for mistakes. So if III wants to get back to that, and find those diamonds in the rough I'm all for it. WE ARE
GEORGETOWN
WE NEED
TO GET BACK TO THAT
Last Edit: Mar 9, 2009 15:02:49 GMT -5 by Air Jordan
Post by blueandgray on Mar 9, 2009 15:23:17 GMT -5
What these guys with NBA aspirations need to understand is that if the team has success, their chances of making the jump to the L increase dramatically. Take Jeff Green as an example. If Jeff gets called for a travel in the Vandi game and we get knocked out at the round of 16.... I seriously doubt he remains the 5th pick in the draft. Lottery pick yes...top 5, i don't think so. At the end of the day, everyone wants a winner and at some level I'm not sure some of the guys on the team really and trully understand this. Oherwise, I just don't know how you account for the bickering amoug players, the lazy passes, the standing straight up on D...etc.
The goods news is that I think you can have the best of both worlds... a guy who is highly touted and who also goes all out each an every play. I think you'll find that Hollis is one of those guys.
Last Edit: Mar 9, 2009 15:25:05 GMT -5 by blueandgray
Yes, you're exactly right! What we need is for JTIII to dust off his little magic seeing ball, look into the future, and be able to foresee again which under-the-radar high school players will be able to: i) play above their expected levels; and ii) mesh together perfectly without any problems whatsoever. IT'S JUST THAT EASY!!!
On edit: This sentiment, in my book, is right up there with the guys saying "Why hasn't JTIII recruited a DeJuan Blair?!? This team needs a Blair!!!" I mean seriously.
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 9, 2009 15:57:17 GMT -5
I think you're being a bit harsh SW. I have actually thought along the same lines as Jordan to the extent that I worry about whether HS rankings/ratings are accurate indicators in terms of ability to form a team and work w/in a coherent system. We have highly-touted guys right now who can't beat Seton Hall! Something isn't working there. So I do think that there might be some truth to the fact that it is important to look beyond the bid name blue chips and put together some hard working role players a la J Wall. If J Wall were coming out of HS right now, I don't know that he'd be on our radar, and that might be something to keep in mind.
I was saying during Depaul that I honestly like something about the lineup of Jesse, Chris, Monroe, Nikita, and Sims. At least two of those guys will never sniff the NBA. One of them is clearly not developed yet. And one of them is a highly regarded but still improving freshman. But they move the ball. They're are ready to defer to another guy and move without the ball until something happens and we get an open look. I'm not saying that's our best lineup, but there's a more "team" feel to it than one that includes Summer, Chris, and Monroe.
So if III gets a guy no one has heard of, hey he will coach him up, and those guys who stick around 3 to 4 years will be the foundation to rebuild the program again.
I agree with you except with this line. The program doesn't need to be rebuilt. The program is steady where it is; we had a bad year, and this happens. We played above expectations early, then played below expectations late. We're young (I remember UCONN two years ago were young and played not too well; now look at pretty much the same team) and next year we will be better. The program is here to stay for how long JTIII is here, and it did not fall when Hibbert, Wallace, Ewing, Crawford left. The pieces are in place, they just haven't clicked yet
"I feel that 20 years from now, I think we'll be remembered as that group of guys that helped bring Georgetown back.'' -Roy Hibbert
"I'll just say this, when he came out of the locker room with the same clothes on, I felt pretty good." -JTIII on Pitino
Ratings are based on things guys, not every scout has no idea what they're doing. They're based on athleticism, basketball iq, defensive ability, passing, shooting, post abilities, etc. Higher rated players are GENERALLY better than lower rated players. I don't think III is intent of recruiting 5 star prospects, I think that the recruits JTIII is intent on getting generally have a skillset that makes them rated highly. Remember, he did pluck Nikita and Wattad from absolutely nowhere when we were at our recruiting "hottest".
I think you're being a bit harsh SW. I have actually thought along the same lines as Jordan to the extent that I worry about whether HS rankings/ratings are accurate indicators in terms of ability to form a team and work w/in a coherent system.
They aren't.
But what I think sw was trying to say was simply that evaluating work ethic, role in a system, coachability, etc. is really hard. Much harder than pure talent.
So I think most coaches lean towards what they can evaluate versus what they can't.
I don't know how much of this year is chalked up to those things you are talking about, but I would note that NONE of our recruits seemed to show any of this in HS. It's not like any of them were disciplinary problems and half of them, like Austin, play in very structured frameworks.
You need people to buy in, absolutely. But that's a tough thing to evaluate.
"The ball should move, bodies should move. You talk about being an undisciplined, unselfish group. That's what you do. If the ball's sticking, great defensive teams are going to load up. If you don't move the ball and [be] unselfish, it's gonna be long nights, so you better learn to move the ball, share, and play with a sense of urgency on every possession. Our teams will always be unselfish, our teams will always be physical, and our teams will always do our best to defend."
Post by FrazierFanatic on Mar 9, 2009 16:04:42 GMT -5
And sometimes it takes more than a year to get them to not only buy in, but to then be able to execute together. Hard to do it on the fly, even harder when you have almost an entire team trying to do it all at once. Next year will be better, I have a feeling much better. Faith and hope.
I think I should clarify. Let's examine the underclassmen on this team who were highly ranked.
The list to me looks like Greg Monroe, Austin Freeman, and Chris Wright. To a slightly lesser extent, include Henry Sims and Jason Clark.
My evaluations from herein out will be based on the information widely disseminated when the players COMMITTED, since determining the recruiting strategy after the fact seems asinine, not everything is going to pan out.
Monroe was advertised as the perfect center for the Princeton O. Ultra-high bball IQ, incredible passer, nice touch on a jumper, low post moves, rebounding ability and a developing shot blocker. Specifically, he seemed like the perfect piece for the set where we always saw Roy take the ball at the top of the key. Unlike Roy, Monroe is a triple threat from that position, while Roy was ALMOST always going to pass. Monroe was very highly ranked, but that's not why we went after him, we wanted him for fit.
Austin Freeman was advertised as having the best midrange game in a class that included Eric Gordon, OJ Mayo, Kyle Singler and James Harden. Quoting from Bob Gibbons 2007 write-up, "He is also a very versatile player, because unlike many players today he has a complete game. He can handle, pass, shoot, defend and rebound. Freeman has elite scoring instincts. . One of Austins special skills is that he makes every one around him better. He is a winner, has a hi basketball IQ and very good knowledge of the game. He understands his role and is the consummate team player. Freeman knows how to play with and without the ball. Austin is a very strong physical specimen with NBA skills."
Not surprisingly, this prospect appears to be an elite, multi-faceted two guard. In fact, he appears to be the perfect two guard for our offense. Whether or not you agree with the evaluation NOW is irrelevant, it's clearly how he was seen at the time.
Chris Wright was perceived as a more athletic, driving version of Jon Wallace. Was that evaluation grossly off in some ways? Yes. For example, Wright is not even in the same league as Wallace as a perimeter shooter. But this was the same kid that won the McD AA's 3 point shooting contest. There's no doubt that he can shoot. He was hoped to add another wrinkle to the Princeton by being the first Georgetown guard under JTIII that could consistently drive and dish.
Henry Sims was seen as a developing big man who had tons of potential but wasn't strong enough to contribute right away. Evaluating that recruiting decision during his freshman season is asinine, he wasn't brought in to start from day one, he was brought in to dominate in years 3 and 4. As Gibbons said at the time, "The upside on this Georgetown commit is limitless. Right now he still a work in progress."
What were the biggest complaints on this board last season? It almost always seemed to be that we weren't able to feed the post. Well, check Jason Clark's evaluation. "Clark is the type of kid who makes everyone around him better. He runs the floor well and feeds the post better than most. He has a nice looking stroke." Another multi-faceted guard, this one with a particular talent in an area of need. Were we following the rivals star ratings, or getting the players we think we need to succeed?
JTIII doesn't recruit by star ratings. He recruits players for the system. Since the system emphasizes many skills (shooting, passing, bball IQ, athleticism, finishing around the rim), the recruits JTIII targets are multi-talented. Multi-talented athletic 17 year old boys are always going to be highly rated prospects as long as they've had enough exposure.
EDIT: It seems like what people REALLY want is for JTIII to be able to figure out exactly which HS players will be able to compete most effectively in the Big East, and then out recruit Roy Williams, John Calipari, Coach K, Bruce Pearl, Jim Boeheim, Bob Huggins, Jim Calhoun, Jay Wright, Thad Matta, Rick Barnes, Billy Donovan, Bill Self, Jamie Dixon and Ben Howland for those exactly properly identified kids. If that's your expectation from recruiting, you better figure out how to build a time machine and get us a young John Wooden.
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Mar 9, 2009 16:33:29 GMT -5
I was also looking back at vids, posts, and FLHoya's recaps, as well as some charts and articles detailing the offense.
The main takeaway that I could see was that this year's team has been running the "High post" part of the offense---as opposed to the "Low Post" we ran a lot more of in 06-08---and some of the alternative options thereof, but without the hard, driving, urgent cuts and crisp, accurate passes the whole offense requires. Also, that part of the offense, just like the Low Post part, relies on things running through the center, but it seemed that Greg was consistently denied the ball or it just simply didn't get to him. The 5 man has to be an excellent passer, which Greg is/will be, but the off-ball cuts and spacing has to be there too, and I just didn't see it to the extent that it's been perfected over the last couple years. I have faith that III will get the guys to learn.
I also noticed that this team didn't successfully incorporate the "take the open shot" philosophy of the offense to the same degree. They just didn't seem to get open as much, so lots and lots of possessions were last-second drives at the lane and not-totally-set threes. That said, I did notice an improvement in mid-range jumpers, both in frequency and success, especially from Freeman.
How many ways can people say the EXACT same thing a different way???
III needs to recruit second tier guys that will listen and run through a wall for him if all he knows is the princeton Offense OR he needs to dump the offense if he wants to continue signing a team loaded will all americans
You don't think there are all-americans that are unselfish players? That's odd because they seem to be exactly the all-americans that we try to recruit.
No thanks!!!! If Wooden coached today his program would stay on the sanctions list. He may be ONE OF the most corrupt coaches in the history of college bball. Before people get their panties in a bunch over this, I recommend the HBO documentary on wooden and his street agents
" You don't think there are all-americans that are unselfish players? That's odd because they seem to be exactly the all-americans that we try to recruit."
I never said our All americans were selfish. What I am saying is all americans are by nature impatient many times during a game because they believe they have the ability to beat the guy in front of him 1 on 1 at any time.
Thorough breeds are born to run, cart horses are born to pull carts
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Mar 9, 2009 20:57:56 GMT -5
We played the high post version of the offense almost exclusively in JTIII's first year here, too, Coast2Coast. My takeaway from that is that Coach believes that when most of the guys on the team have never played in the system before, it's better to try to improve one of the major sets than to play both of them mediocrelly (not sure what the adverb form of mediocre is).
I think that in this case, as the season went on, many of the opposing Big East coaches figured this out, and only had to prepare for half as many offensive possibilities.
The downside is that our ceiling for this season became limited. The upside is that if we can install the low post set next season (and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to), the offense should become twice as difficult to guard (as it was in years 2-4).
The thing about the Class of 2008 in 2005 was that you could tell that Jeff and Roy were working on their low post footwork and practicing hook shots and working on their defensive positioning and that Wallace was figuring out exactly what his role was and what he should and should not do and that Crawford really was learning the offense so that when he got a chance he was the hardest cutter on the team. I haven't seen much sign that the current players are working on their game in the same way. Guys are accepting that they are shooters not drivers or drivers not shooters and no one wants to be the defensive stopper or the double figure rebounder even though those roles are there for the taking.
You also have to take into consideration you are comparing games with players having over a year of expierence in the system, compared to this year with only one. Also you are comparing those teams best games of the season, compared to some of our worst since they are freshest on your mind. Not an entirely fair comparison.
The thing about the Class of 2008 in 2005 was that you could tell that Jeff and Roy were working on their low post footwork and practicing hook shots and working on their defensive positioning and that Wallace was figuring out exactly what his role was and what he should and should not do and that Crawford really was learning the offense so that when he got a chance he was the hardest cutter on the team. I haven't seen much sign that the current players are working on their game in the same way. Guys are accepting that they are shooters not drivers or drivers not shooters and no one wants to be the defensive stopper or the double figure rebounder even though those roles are there for the taking.
The reason they haven't shown that is because they're not those players.
We have 10 offense-first, face-up players. That's why I'm questioning that our offense looks like 2006-08 next year and not more like an ASU. I don't think the low-post set has to do with comfort with the offense as much as it does with us starting a 7'2 back-to-the-basket center and in two years a combo-forward who backed up Roy. We slid Jeff down to spell Roy much of the time because he could post too.
I don't think it's buying in or being comfortable. I just think we don't have any low-post players or defensive stoppers on the roster.
We played the high post version of the offense almost exclusively in JTIII's first year here, too, Coast2Coast. My takeaway from that is that Coach believes that when most of the guys on the team have never played in the system before, it's better to try to improve one of the major sets than to play both of them mediocrelly (not sure what the adverb form of mediocre is).
I think that in this case, as the season went on, many of the opposing Big East coaches figured this out, and only had to prepare for half as many offensive possibilities.
The downside is that our ceiling for this season became limited. The upside is that if we can install the low post set next season (and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to), the offense should become twice as difficult to guard (as it was in years 2-4).
Fair enough. That's my thinking too. Probably also had to do with the fact that we didn't have a true low post threat this year and were thin up front.
Watching highlights from that Duke game (above), two things stand out for me. One is that we had consistent (ok, pretty damn good) three pt shooting betwen bowman owens, green, wallace, cook, etc. The players we have recruited should be consistent three pt shots, but aren't yet.
Also, even without Hibbs Green stands out as being able to finish by the basket, something our bigs are still developing. On paper though, our team has athletic talent - one hopes they develop the consistency and grow into the offense some more.
But yes, some great off ball cuts as well - hopefully we see more of that soon.
