HoNYaSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 562
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 15:23:02 GMT -5
Post by HoNYaSaxa on Nov 14, 2009 15:23:02 GMT -5
Anyone else intrigued by the fact that Clark, Freeman, Wright and Monroe all played 35 minutes in this game? Would have thought that Henry and Hollis would have both seen a little more court time...
Sounds like Julian did nice things in the game, though, and deserved all of his 25 minutes.
|
|
sweetness
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 838
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 15:28:14 GMT -5
Post by sweetness on Nov 14, 2009 15:28:14 GMT -5
I think it's a situation where you kind of have to get the win -- first game, on the road, and it was really important this year to erase the bad taste in everyone's mouth from last year. My guess is Hollis and Sims play more and more each game, with more Nikita mixed in as well.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,440
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 16:59:37 GMT -5
Post by lichoya68 on Nov 14, 2009 16:59:37 GMT -5
and we needed the twoheadedmoonstercenter for at least 30 minutes and we got 41 sounds good to me and HOLLIS will play you bet and henry started slow and was mean in the second half MEAN THAT IS go hoyas anad vee will be playing some and also mr. bennnimen yup tooooo
|
|
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 17:32:32 GMT -5
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 14, 2009 17:32:32 GMT -5
I actually liked it. WAY too many times in the last 2 years we'd see Roy run off the court or Freeman head off for Nikita, and I'd be thinking "STICK WITH THE PLAYERS WHO WORK." So that seems to be what we did. And I hope we continue to do that. If Hollis and Sims show that they're as effective as they guys they're going in for, then great. Give them minutes. But if they're not, then let's stop playing substitution roulette with everyone except the end-of-the-benchers.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 18:43:06 GMT -5
Post by MCIGuy on Nov 14, 2009 18:43:06 GMT -5
I actually liked it. WAY too many times in the last 2 years we'd see Roy run off the court or Freeman head off for Nikita, and I'd be thinking "STICK WITH THE PLAYERS WHO WORK." So that seems to be what we did. And I hope we continue to do that. If Hollis and Sims show that they're as effective as they guys they're going in for, then great. Give them minutes. But if they're not, then let's stop playing substitution roulette with everyone except the end-of-the-benchers. As much as I can't stand Gary Williams I do like how he gives all of his players chances to get on the court and prove themselves. Many of those players look awful at first and it shows when the Terps lose early games to inferior teams. But as the season progresses the Terps tend to get a lot better and are able to challenge and beat the UNCs and Dukes because those very same players got better. And they got better, IMO at least, because of time on the court. If you're going to recruit the players you might as well play them. Some guys are not going to get much better just through practice; they need trial by fire; they need to see how they hold up against REAL game competition. . And for many of them they do need to know that if they do put in the work they will get some meaningful court time during the regular season. Some of you may not to hear that but the players are human and some of them will either lose confidence pretty quickly or lose the inspiration to try to perform well in practice over the course of months if they feel the coach is not going t put them in the game on a regular basis. And I can't blame them. For the second time today I'm bringing up how Gtown fans seem to want III to bring in every big time recruit he's sets his sights on and then these same fans want to play only 7 or 8 guys during the season. Well what about the three or more other guys on the roster? They want minutes too. And then when they transfer folks go on a tear about the lack of continuity. If III wants to recruit a lot of good players then the only way to keep most of them them happy is to play them. Period. Otherwise we get stuck with undeveloped prospects, lots of transfers, and worn out starters. If you folks want III to play just six guys then perhaps you should hope he fills his roster each season with only six top 100 recruits and seven sleepers who went unnoticed by recruiting gurus. In fact lets stop putting any of our focus on Roscoe Smith or Jelan because clearly the Hoyas already have enough highly touted players on its roster. Why bring in more and crowd things, huh? Just because some of you may think its perfectly acceptable for guys like Hollis, Henry, Roscoe, Jelan, Nate, market, etc. to not get many minutes if they aren't playing at a certain level doesn't mean those players would think its acceptable. They can go elsewhere you know. To this day the most ridiculous thing I feel JTIII ever did was when he refused to give anyone in his first recruiting class other than Sapp any real playing time. It was a waste of scholarships and a sign of either stubbornness by III or an unwillingness to teach and coach those players as he surely must have promised them when he recruited them.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,785
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 19:21:37 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 14, 2009 19:21:37 GMT -5
1. Marc Egerson got a decent bit of time. He was in that class.
2. Players shouldn't play for recruiting purposes. Josh Thornton hasn't been all that good at Towson and Spann not at Marshall. I'm still waiting for the player who transferred for PT and dominated.
3. Thompson has often commented that he wants to get his core settled first then phase in the other players. It's not out of the realm of possibility this is a good idea.
4. Everyone has their pet player. They'll get on the floor when they earn it.
|
|
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 20:27:38 GMT -5
Post by hoyas big supporter on Nov 14, 2009 20:27:38 GMT -5
5. we've seen a lot of Nikita already. imo please keep him rooted to the bench for a while.
6. Sims will get his just chill.
7. Vee is still a frosh this was his first game, and have you ever seen Benimon play? do you really think he should be getting more minutes in light of his recent injusry too?
8. Once again its the first game of the season, Hollis got a solid 15 mins in
9. Oh yeah and I almost forget, how many players played 35+ mins when we took down Uconn last year? 4. Mempis game early in the season? 4 for 40+. But I guess recruits will stop coming here even if we keep winning games against top teams.
10. Clearly you should be the coach of the team since you know how each player is developing each day in practice.
I mean im sure if there was a player that really did deserve more minutes they would have gotten them. Its the first game of the season and III knows what he's doing. Its not like we have Keith Gallon and Avery Bradley just chillin on the bench. and if they were here no doubt they'd be getting minutes so I dont see a problem. Oh, and did I forget to mention that we just won our opener by 16?
....and im not sure if you noticed but 3 of the 4 that played 35+ mins were all mcdonalds all americans and the other was an all-met POY. Im pretty comfortable with the team in the hands of our 4 best players...
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 20:32:42 GMT -5
Post by hoyaboy1 on Nov 14, 2009 20:32:42 GMT -5
If we had great depth, I'd love to go 9-10 deep. But we don't - at best we have 8 guys that should be playing on a top 20 team this year. With our slow pace we don't have to go deeper than 8 unless there is a real reason to. Nikita and Benimon aren't reasons.
|
|
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 21:47:51 GMT -5
Post by gtowndynasty on Nov 14, 2009 21:47:51 GMT -5
I like the way you think Hoyaboya. If we played an uptempo game, like UNC, then we would need to go deeper. But at the pace we play, we could go 5, barring foul trouble. The better teams will eventually try to speed us up. But for now, Im ok with a rotation of 3 bigs, and 4 guards. I just hope Vee can break into the rotation because as much as I like Clark, I think Vee with his handles are critical to spelling Wright.
But as previously stated, III knows what he is doing. As long as the team wins, I dont care who plays where or for how long!
|
|
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 21:54:32 GMT -5
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Nov 14, 2009 21:54:32 GMT -5
clark's handle has improved to the point that i'm fully comfortable with him as a back up point guard.
|
|
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 22:03:35 GMT -5
Post by gtowndynasty on Nov 14, 2009 22:03:35 GMT -5
HSB Im not that comfy yet. He looked cool against Tulane, but their guards were mediocre at best. Ive only seen him against the green wave and in summer league, which neither are impressive comp. What concerns me about Clark is he does a lot of spinning, even in the backcourt. Id be convinced (not that it matters if I am convinced or not) if he can beat the pressure of say Uconn or Lville. I like Clark a WHOLE lot, but he still looks somewhat shaky handling the ball.
I like his handle once he gets it on the wing though in the triple threat, but I dont love him breaking the press. Time will tell. In the end, I think Vee has to play simply because he is a top 3 (not arguable) ballhandler on our squad, tho Id say top 2.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Minutes
Nov 14, 2009 23:54:13 GMT -5
Post by MCIGuy on Nov 14, 2009 23:54:13 GMT -5
It doesn't matter to me in the end if III plays 12 or 8 on a regular basis. I prefer to play the higher number of guys but the win is the most important thing. My problem is more with fans wanting III to have 10 or more four star players on the rosters and then hoping he ends up only playing 7 to 8 of them. Its absurd. That's basically a selfish wish of wanting the higher number of four star players and then being 100% okay if two to three of them never see the floor (and then acting as if those other players should be happy just to be part of the program even if they don't get minutes). And if the pace of the Hoyas is so slow that 7 guys are only needed I must ask once more why should we bother pursuing Roscoe and Jelan. Even if Monroe leaves there's a good chance neither would be in the top 7 rotation next season. Or if they are good enough to jump into that rotation then perhaps a player like Hollis or Henry gets pushed out of the top 7. I'd hate to see that happen because I do like to see the guys have successful college careers and positive experiences while they are at GU.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Minutes
Nov 15, 2009 0:11:13 GMT -5
Post by MCIGuy on Nov 15, 2009 0:11:13 GMT -5
Oh, heck. Looks like Jelan's off the board. Won't have to worry about minutes for him now.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Minutes
Nov 15, 2009 1:00:54 GMT -5
Post by hoyaboy1 on Nov 15, 2009 1:00:54 GMT -5
MCI, your last few points have become over the top absurd. When have we ever had 10 studs, but had fans arguing to only play 7? And why wouldn't you want as many options as possible, regardless of how shallow your rotation is? Not everyone pans out, and injuries happen.
You get too caught up in your pet issues.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Minutes
Nov 15, 2009 7:15:05 GMT -5
Post by MCIGuy on Nov 15, 2009 7:15:05 GMT -5
MCI, your last few points have become over the top absurd. When have we ever had 10 studs, but had fans arguing to only play 7? And why wouldn't you want as many options as possible, regardless of how shallow your rotation is? Not everyone pans out, and injuries happen. You get too caught up in your pet issues. hoyaboy, every top 100 player is a "stud" player in the fans' eyes when the recruiting process is going on here. Every four star recruit suggests the type of promise that gets the fans excited and anticipating the future. Its only when the players arrive at the university and suit up to play does reality set in. To answer your question I can't recall any Gtown team that had ten stud players. And that's my point. You see rarely has any team ever had ten stud players. Not even UNC. And yet plenty of teams manage to play 10 or more of its players. If you are suggesting, by using the word "stud", that the only reason to play ten guys would be if all ten were great college performers then I gotta say that is an idiotic criteria. The best teams don't have ten of those type of guys. The very special ones may have anywhere between five to seven. But the rest of the guys on the roster are "merely" pretty good players who know their roles. And those type of players don't necessarily look all that great initially. It may take them a year or two to get it right but sure enough Hall of Fame coaches have been putting such guys out there on the floor for decades allowing them to grow via the best type of experience possible: regular minutes on the court during game time. You don't even have to believe in that method, but you can't deny that's in been in use for an eternity. So excuse me if I disagree when I come across Hoya fans always campaigning for shortening the rotation to seven guys. And that's all I'm doing: disagreeing. Giving a different opinion is not having a "pet issue" so save your bs characterization for someone else. Because its not like I go around discussing this on this board a whole lot. A pet issue is wondering/hoping that every other recruit is a 7-footer. A pet issue is constantly bringing up how unfortunate the Hoyas didn't recruit Biggie McClain. A pet issue is regular, repeated comments about a lack of an on-campus facility. You understand? Well, once you do go track down other posters and waste your lectures on them. Because ultimately its selfish. What that says is you don't care if a highly regarded player gets few minutes for much if not most of his college years just as long as he's available for YOUR team whenever he's called upon. That may be swell for you but its not so great for the player who wants to see time on the court. I for one can see beyond my own selfish desires for my team's success to at least consider what the player may be going through. Shame on me for doing so. Point is I don't buy that nonsense that you only play your best players if best players are defined as your starting lineup and the next one or two guys after that. In every sport coaches have to give time to players who are not as gifted, not as ready, not as smart as their best guys. The coaches simply deal with it and try to manage those players and their time as well as possible. The coaches may actually even do their job and train those players as best as possible so at the very least they won't hurt the team much when they get minutes. By doing this a coach keeps his best players fresh, expands the number of players who are game-ready if he needs to call on them, and lessens the chances of team chemistry issues (which can lead to losses and transfers). This may not be III's philosophy and I can respect that even if I don't agree with it.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Minutes
Nov 15, 2009 9:13:05 GMT -5
Post by hoyaboy1 on Nov 15, 2009 9:13:05 GMT -5
Your posts are still completely devoid of almost any connection to reality. Who wants these 6-7 man rotations you are talking about? When have we had more players that deserved time, but had fans on this board arguing not to play them? If anything, it's been the other way around - fans always want to see the new guy when things aren't going perfectly.
Beyond that, this isn't little league. The best players deserve to play, and everyone that goes to a major program should understand that. I want as many good players as we can get, and then I want the split of minutes that makes the team perform the best. If that is an 8 man rotation, I won't feel bad for those left behind. College sports is a competition.
We are talking about not playing lightly recruited freshman. This isn't some travesty. This team is never going to be running up and down the court and playing 10 guys, so it isn't going to fulfill your basketball fantasy. You just need to get used to it. And please keep the response reasonably short, it's early.
|
|
|
Minutes
Nov 15, 2009 9:38:48 GMT -5
Post by hoyas big supporter on Nov 15, 2009 9:38:48 GMT -5
Bottom line. If we had 10 four stars sitting on the bench that were good III would get them PT. But we don't so I dont see how Hoya fans are being selfish by wanting the best basketball players out there. Every school wishes for the best players. For example, even if we pick up two players that are better than Sims and Hollis and they take all their minutes who cares? I mean I like both of them but THIS IS A COLLEGIATE BASKETBALL TEAM, its not always about making certain individuals happy. Look at our transfers in the past few years. Which ones do we actually miss that much??? none imo. Competition is good, it causes kids to step up, and if Sims and Hollis get beaten out for all their minutes by better players than by all means they can stay on the bench as long as the best performers are playing and we are getting W's.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,670
|
Minutes
Nov 15, 2009 10:16:55 GMT -5
Post by seaweed on Nov 15, 2009 10:16:55 GMT -5
Win at all costs, even if it means taking quality players to warm our bench and then transfer out. This board never worries about transfers, so that is not a problem. I say take all the top 10 recruits (screw top 100, what have they done for us lately?) and let #s 6-10 sit - they won't mind, will they, watching their shot at NBA millions go to naught, as long as our program is winning these kids will still come just to practice with our top guys.
No offense but sometimes it is really easy to tell the difference between people who play sports and fans. The root word of fan might just as well be fantasy as fanatic for the sense some people have about what is good and right or even possible in the world.
|
|
|
Minutes
Nov 15, 2009 11:00:52 GMT -5
Post by hoyas big supporter on Nov 15, 2009 11:00:52 GMT -5
all im saying is let the best players play, III knows what he's doing.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,330
|
Minutes
Nov 15, 2009 11:11:17 GMT -5
Post by tashoya on Nov 15, 2009 11:11:17 GMT -5
Ah what the heck.... I think the answer is somewhere in between. However, I think the biggest difference between our program and many other successful programs in recent years has been that we have 7 or 8 guys that get and deserve PT and we have bench guys (to a large extent) that really don't look like they belong on the floor at this level. Whether that's a recruiting issue or a coaching/teaching issue, I really don't know. All I'm saying is that we seem to have had a drop off in talent from the top 8 that I think is larger than most other squads. Add to that the fact that our offense lends itself to closer games, and it's very easy to try to keep your best guys on the floor. Clearly not an ideal situation for either the players left out in the cold or the team as a whole in the long run as attrition and general fatigue surely factor in (especially for the underclassmen) when February and March roll around.
I wish it were all puppy dogs and ice cream but it's not. Some kids are not going to get the minutes they'd like to get. However, to equate that to NBA-level talent sitting on the bench and not getting the exposure they need to make those millions is more than asinine, it's absurd.
|
|