|
Post by midsouthhoya on Nov 19, 2009 13:28:50 GMT -5
RDF, I'm definitely old enough to have endured the Princeton game and many others like it (SMU several years earlier is another example). I'm also familiar with the common view that the game signaled some kind of downfall etc. etc. As awful as that game was for me as a Hoya fan, I've always loved it as a college basketball fan. It's a gem of a game that illustrates how nearly flawless execution on defense (and catching enough breaks on offense) can really disrupt a team that should dominate. In no way does Tuesday's game rise to that level of defensive perfection, but I do see it as a game where both teams emphasized defense--a sensible approach early in the season--and flat out frustrated each other on offense. It got ugly, but it's the kind of ugliness that I've always enjoyed for making college basketball exciting and often unpredictable.
That said, I'll take last year's dismantling of UConn any day.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 19, 2009 14:36:21 GMT -5
The offense didn't restrict our first set of teams. Aside from Wallace/Wright, is this team really more athletic?
Monroe is not more athletic than Jeff. Vaughn/Sims are not more athletic than Ewing. Freeman/Clark are more athletic than Cook and Sapp, but I'd take Brandon and DaJuan's athleticism versus Hollis and Free, if that's how we're comparing.
High-rated doesn't mean anything anymore.
You want to make a compelling argument that this team can't shoot or handle, so we need to try something else, sure.
But before you go down the road of "The Princeton restricts athletes" let's not ignore that our previous squads were NOT unathletic.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Nov 19, 2009 14:51:16 GMT -5
I would also note that the no. 1 in the country didnt look all that impressive in their 57-55 win over a rebuilding Memphis team, and at times last year, Michigan St looked like an awful, awful team. They made it to the championship. Perspective is definitely the word.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Nov 19, 2009 15:00:06 GMT -5
RDF, I'm definitely old enough to have endured the Princeton game and many others like it (SMU several years earlier is another example). I'm also familiar with the common view that the game signaled some kind of downfall etc. etc. As awful as that game was for me as a Hoya fan, I've always loved it as a college basketball fan. It's a gem of a game that illustrates how nearly flawless execution on defense (and catching enough breaks on offense) can really disrupt a team that should dominate. In no way does Tuesday's game rise to that level of defensive perfection, but I do see it as a game where both teams emphasized defense--a sensible approach early in the season--and flat out frustrated each other on offense. It got ugly, but it's the kind of ugliness that I've always enjoyed for making college basketball exciting and often unpredictable. That said, I'll take last year's dismantling of UConn any day. I agree. The game was definitely ugly, but I was there, and Temple played defense on every single possession. They were in position in every half court set. They had weak side help down low. They fronted players. Even still, if we made the shots we got good looks on, we would have won by 10 points. Because we missed a lot of those shots, we won by 1. If teams play that type of defense against us, we are going to be in for a lot of games like that. As i mentioned above, Memphis did the same against Kansas. In case people didnt know, it was 4-2 at the first tv timeout in that game, too.
|
|
|
Post by grokamok on Nov 19, 2009 15:40:49 GMT -5
Sure, we missed a few shots that we could have made, but I'd say that, despite a relatively good Hoya defensive effort through the first half and in the latter part of the second, Temple had far more open looks that failed to result in a basket than we had. If each team had hit open shots at the same rate, I think we'd have lost this one.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Nov 19, 2009 15:59:15 GMT -5
RDF, I'm definitely old enough to have endured the Princeton game and many others like it (SMU several years earlier is another example). I'm also familiar with the common view that the game signaled some kind of downfall etc. etc. As awful as that game was for me as a Hoya fan, I've always loved it as a college basketball fan. It's a gem of a game that illustrates how nearly flawless execution on defense (and catching enough breaks on offense) can really disrupt a team that should dominate. In no way does Tuesday's game rise to that level of defensive perfection, but I do see it as a game where both teams emphasized defense--a sensible approach early in the season--and flat out frustrated each other on offense. It got ugly, but it's the kind of ugliness that I've always enjoyed for making college basketball exciting and often unpredictable. That said, I'll take last year's dismantling of UConn any day. Funny--because I'd argue that Pops got his ass outcoached severely. 1. Not pressing Princeton 2. Not playing zone--as you see what it does to our team now The lack of those 2 things allowed Princeton to do what they wanted and when you let another team dictate what they'll do--you lose. Same issue I took with him in '85 Title Game but who's carrying a grudge?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 19, 2009 16:54:44 GMT -5
I would also note that the no. 1 in the country didnt look all that impressive in their 57-55 win over a rebuilding Memphis team, and at times last year, Michigan St looked like an awful, awful team. They made it to the championship. Perspective is definitely the word. I agree with the overall picture, but I have to admit that when I was watching that Memphis-Kansas game, I thought that both teams looked more athletic than pretty much any of the other teams that I have seen this year. I'm not saying they are "better," just that maybe, when you match up 2 athletic teams against one another, there is maybe a little more of a flow and ultimate "watchablity" to the game. Case in point: I didn't think the Mich. St. -- Gonzaga game had any similar flow either. Whatever the reason, that Memphis-Kansas game "looked" like it had a higher level of athleticism.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 19, 2009 23:19:04 GMT -5
Freeman/Clark are more athletic than Cook and Sapp, but I'd take Brandon and DaJuan's athleticism versus Hollis and Free, if that's how we're comparing. I think you might get a compelling argument against your point on the guards. You get no argument from me against the idea that Clark is more athletic than Cook and Sapp. My problem is with Freeman - or at least the Freeman before he lost weight. He seemed to be a lazy/limited player who was mostly mid-range and long-range jumpers without much, if any, explosion. Compare to Sapp and Cook. Sapp was highly athletic in flashes and is probably more athletic outside of a basketball analysis. He has great reflexes that maybe do not always translate on the floor. Cook is underrated IMO as an athlete. Was he a freak? No, but he could reliably compete/keep up against superior athletes, particularly in the calendar year of 2006. Also, I think you have to throw Owens as a wild card into this analysis. He was an earlier day Ewing role player on our roster, although the players were quite different. Owens similarly had the ability to change a game based on his (perimeter) play and also developed some limited interior skills that allowed him to contribute in other areas - assists and rebounds - when his career was winding down. Our team right now, as I think you agree, does not have an equivalent to even Owens. Maybe Hollis gets there in time, but he isn't there yet. I was hoping Nikita would develop in this way, but he is clearly not on that track right now.
|
|