Post by mapei on Dec 19, 2009 16:06:38 GMT -5
I maintain my view that this article is NOT a slam on the Hoyas, and not even on the Princeton offense, though at the very end the writer does reveal himself to be a skeptic about it.
And, frankly, I don't remember the guy as a player. Who cares where he went to school?
Here's what he actually wrote:
One of the most intriguing shapes to follow has to be Georgetown, currently ranked No. 11. After a disappointing 2008-9 season, questions abound as to whether the Hoyas and their Princeton offense will be able to return to N.C.A.A. tournament form.
He's writing about us because we're highly ranked but coming off a down season. He thinks we make a good blog story. I don't have an issue with that.
Unpicked on Selection Sunday for the first time since 2004-5, Georgetown broke a streak of three consecutive N.C.A.A. tournament appearances — a streak that included a trip to the Round of 16 (2006) and a Final Four (2007). But last year, instead of going dancing, the Hoyas went 6-14 to finish the season, including first-round losses in both the Big East tournament and the N.I.T.
That's simply factual.
It was a year that saw many fail to live up to expectations as five teams ranked in the preseason Top 25 (Notre Dame, Florida, Davidson, Miami, Georgetown) missed the N.C.A.A. tournament, while another four ranked teams (Texas, Southern California, Tennessee, Wisconsin) ended up not being ranked.
Ask any member of those teams (those five especially) how it feels to flounder.
Here he's making it clear that we weren't the only team that had an unexpected down year. Maybe on another day he'll write abot one of the other teams, or maybe not, but we're the highest ranked of those five and it makes some sense to choose us to write about.
What made Georgetown’s fall even stranger was its 10-1 start with wins over the ranked opponents Memphis and Connecticut. Heading into January, the Hoyas looked like a top-10 team. Where did they go wrong?
Again, he's just being factual, and posing the same question that we have ourselves posed over and over in this forum.
The short answer is that winning in last season’s Big East was tougher than it is to find a job in this year’s economy. Eight of those final 14 losses came against then-ranked opponents, including out-of-conference Duke (ranked No. 2 at the time).
Surely no one has a problem with this sentence. He's basically saying that any criticism of the Hoyas should be tempered with respect for the schedule.
While it would be easy to chalk all of the Hoyas’ struggles up to a loaded Big East, looking at the stats help paint a different picture. Six seasons ago, John Thompson III came to Georgetown and brought with him the Princeton offense . . .
For Georgetown, the 2008-9 season was not one of efficiency. It was the first season of Thompson’s tenure when the Hoyas averaged more turnovers than assists and only the second season with a negative rebounding margin, the only other instance being his first year with Georgetown (also an N.I.T. season). Out of their final 14 losses, Georgetown had more turnovers than assists in eight games and was outrebounded in nine contests. The Hoyas also had their worst 3-point percentage since Thompson took over, hitting just 33.5 percent from beyond the arc.
OK, this is where he starts getting a little analytical, pointing out that the Princeton offense requires precision and efficiency, and that according to the stats we weren't very efficient last year. He also points out that it was unusal for JT3's teams to have a bad assist/TO ratio, bad rebounding margin, and mediocre 3-point shooting. Many of you are practically screaming that last year was an aberration. He agrees with you.
With those type of numbers in that type of offense it’s hard to be more efficient than your opponents. And after that kind of season it raises the question as to whether or not the Princeton system is right for a school able to recruit top-20 talent, especially in a league that has 16 teams that cover the entire spectrum of defensive philosophies. The answer is a mixed bag.
He finally gets to the one point that is making so many of you apoplectic. He's saying that it is questionable whether athletic, top-20 talent may be better able to use their skills in a different offensive system. He's hardly the first to ask it, and he's right that so far our answer is sort of incomplete.
A couple of seasons ago, Georgetown almost had to use the Princeton offense since it was the only way to keep the 7-foot-4 Roy Hibbert on the floor for more than 10 minutes a game.
I frankly don't understand this point. The only thing keeping Roy out of games during his last two years was occasional foul trouble, not anything having to do with offense. Maybe he's saying that Roy couldn't consistently thrive in a faster system, and he might be right about that, but it's still a badly expressed, kind of dumb point. Roy seems to be doing fine in a different system in the NBA, and he hardly compelled use of the Princeton.
It also didn’t hurt that during that N.C.A.A. tournament stretch that the ship was steered by Jonathan Wallace, one of the headiest and most underrated Big East players in recent memory.
I seem to be the only one who has even noticed this sentence, but personally I love seeing Jon get his due in th NYT. And I couldn't agree more with the statement. Jon was the perfect point guard for JT3's system IMO. I do think losing him was a big deal, and as much for his leadership as his consistently excellent play.
But with the graduation of those two players, Georgetown was left with a much different looking squad, one that was athletically capable of running up and down the floor. But instead of taking advantage of this more versatile cast, the Hoyas stayed in their half-court sets, many times settling for forced late-clock 3-point attempts.
He might be citing the wrong reason here, but this is certainly what happened a lot last year. A lot of us also argued that we should be playing at a quicker pace with Roy and Jon replaced by Greg and Chris. For whatever reason, it didn't happen much or well until this year.
With the Big East as tough as it was, it’s easy to make the proverbial chicken/egg argument. Did Georgetown stop Georgetown? Or was the Big East more than equipped to handle the Hoyas’ style of play? And as with most queries of this type, the answer is probably a little chicken and a little egg.
I think he's being fair here.
Georgetown wasn’t a bad team. It still beat three out of the top six teams in the Big East (Connecticut, Villanova, Syracuse). The Hoyas just picked a really bad year to be less efficient than usual.
Here he comes back to what is my takeaway from the piece, namely that efficiency matters a lot in our system. Possessions need to count. One can debate that, I suppose, but it is hardly a slam on Georgetown to say it. And he points out that we also had some big-time wins last season.
So far this season, Georgetown is undefeated through their first eight games, with wins over the ranked opponents Butler and Washington. And with only two games until conference play, it will be interesting to see if Georgetown can maintain its level of play throughout its Big East schedule.
Yes, it will be interesting. So far we have played above expectations (but for the Temple game). I'm hoping we keep it up, but it's hardly a sure thing.
But questions of success will extend past this season. Is Thompson going to be able to continually recruit the players needed to be competitive in the Big East? And are kids going to want to play in the Princeton offense? One of the reasons Kentucky’s John Calipari recruits so well is that kids want to play in his kind of system — teach them some basic principles, spread them out and give them creative license to attack. How many blue chippers out there are dreaming of mastering the back-cut in the Princeton offense? Can’t be many.
This is the only place in the article where he really comes out and says that the Princeton may be inhibiting recruiting. We have answers to that, I think (see Vern, Austin, Chris and especially Greg), but he's hardly the only writer to suggest it.
On balance, I think he has a mixture of compliments for and doubts about our program, and is saying time will tell. JT3 has sold me on his system, but he hasn't sold everybody yet. I honestly don't think it's that big a deal, and I think it's great that a NYT writer is paying attention to our program.
Now, I think he would have been more analytically sound if he had said more about our poor rebounding, and discussed our defense and chemistry last year, not just the Princeton. But I have pretty low expectations for sportswriters in blogs, and that's a lot to expect. I think it was an incomplete piece, but far from a harsh one.
We have about 18+ more games in which to answer those questions more emphatically. Will we? I'll be rooting as hard as anyone for it.
And, frankly, I don't remember the guy as a player. Who cares where he went to school?
Here's what he actually wrote:
One of the most intriguing shapes to follow has to be Georgetown, currently ranked No. 11. After a disappointing 2008-9 season, questions abound as to whether the Hoyas and their Princeton offense will be able to return to N.C.A.A. tournament form.
He's writing about us because we're highly ranked but coming off a down season. He thinks we make a good blog story. I don't have an issue with that.
Unpicked on Selection Sunday for the first time since 2004-5, Georgetown broke a streak of three consecutive N.C.A.A. tournament appearances — a streak that included a trip to the Round of 16 (2006) and a Final Four (2007). But last year, instead of going dancing, the Hoyas went 6-14 to finish the season, including first-round losses in both the Big East tournament and the N.I.T.
That's simply factual.
It was a year that saw many fail to live up to expectations as five teams ranked in the preseason Top 25 (Notre Dame, Florida, Davidson, Miami, Georgetown) missed the N.C.A.A. tournament, while another four ranked teams (Texas, Southern California, Tennessee, Wisconsin) ended up not being ranked.
Ask any member of those teams (those five especially) how it feels to flounder.
Here he's making it clear that we weren't the only team that had an unexpected down year. Maybe on another day he'll write abot one of the other teams, or maybe not, but we're the highest ranked of those five and it makes some sense to choose us to write about.
What made Georgetown’s fall even stranger was its 10-1 start with wins over the ranked opponents Memphis and Connecticut. Heading into January, the Hoyas looked like a top-10 team. Where did they go wrong?
Again, he's just being factual, and posing the same question that we have ourselves posed over and over in this forum.
The short answer is that winning in last season’s Big East was tougher than it is to find a job in this year’s economy. Eight of those final 14 losses came against then-ranked opponents, including out-of-conference Duke (ranked No. 2 at the time).
Surely no one has a problem with this sentence. He's basically saying that any criticism of the Hoyas should be tempered with respect for the schedule.
While it would be easy to chalk all of the Hoyas’ struggles up to a loaded Big East, looking at the stats help paint a different picture. Six seasons ago, John Thompson III came to Georgetown and brought with him the Princeton offense . . .
For Georgetown, the 2008-9 season was not one of efficiency. It was the first season of Thompson’s tenure when the Hoyas averaged more turnovers than assists and only the second season with a negative rebounding margin, the only other instance being his first year with Georgetown (also an N.I.T. season). Out of their final 14 losses, Georgetown had more turnovers than assists in eight games and was outrebounded in nine contests. The Hoyas also had their worst 3-point percentage since Thompson took over, hitting just 33.5 percent from beyond the arc.
OK, this is where he starts getting a little analytical, pointing out that the Princeton offense requires precision and efficiency, and that according to the stats we weren't very efficient last year. He also points out that it was unusal for JT3's teams to have a bad assist/TO ratio, bad rebounding margin, and mediocre 3-point shooting. Many of you are practically screaming that last year was an aberration. He agrees with you.
With those type of numbers in that type of offense it’s hard to be more efficient than your opponents. And after that kind of season it raises the question as to whether or not the Princeton system is right for a school able to recruit top-20 talent, especially in a league that has 16 teams that cover the entire spectrum of defensive philosophies. The answer is a mixed bag.
He finally gets to the one point that is making so many of you apoplectic. He's saying that it is questionable whether athletic, top-20 talent may be better able to use their skills in a different offensive system. He's hardly the first to ask it, and he's right that so far our answer is sort of incomplete.
A couple of seasons ago, Georgetown almost had to use the Princeton offense since it was the only way to keep the 7-foot-4 Roy Hibbert on the floor for more than 10 minutes a game.
I frankly don't understand this point. The only thing keeping Roy out of games during his last two years was occasional foul trouble, not anything having to do with offense. Maybe he's saying that Roy couldn't consistently thrive in a faster system, and he might be right about that, but it's still a badly expressed, kind of dumb point. Roy seems to be doing fine in a different system in the NBA, and he hardly compelled use of the Princeton.
It also didn’t hurt that during that N.C.A.A. tournament stretch that the ship was steered by Jonathan Wallace, one of the headiest and most underrated Big East players in recent memory.
I seem to be the only one who has even noticed this sentence, but personally I love seeing Jon get his due in th NYT. And I couldn't agree more with the statement. Jon was the perfect point guard for JT3's system IMO. I do think losing him was a big deal, and as much for his leadership as his consistently excellent play.
But with the graduation of those two players, Georgetown was left with a much different looking squad, one that was athletically capable of running up and down the floor. But instead of taking advantage of this more versatile cast, the Hoyas stayed in their half-court sets, many times settling for forced late-clock 3-point attempts.
He might be citing the wrong reason here, but this is certainly what happened a lot last year. A lot of us also argued that we should be playing at a quicker pace with Roy and Jon replaced by Greg and Chris. For whatever reason, it didn't happen much or well until this year.
With the Big East as tough as it was, it’s easy to make the proverbial chicken/egg argument. Did Georgetown stop Georgetown? Or was the Big East more than equipped to handle the Hoyas’ style of play? And as with most queries of this type, the answer is probably a little chicken and a little egg.
I think he's being fair here.
Georgetown wasn’t a bad team. It still beat three out of the top six teams in the Big East (Connecticut, Villanova, Syracuse). The Hoyas just picked a really bad year to be less efficient than usual.
Here he comes back to what is my takeaway from the piece, namely that efficiency matters a lot in our system. Possessions need to count. One can debate that, I suppose, but it is hardly a slam on Georgetown to say it. And he points out that we also had some big-time wins last season.
So far this season, Georgetown is undefeated through their first eight games, with wins over the ranked opponents Butler and Washington. And with only two games until conference play, it will be interesting to see if Georgetown can maintain its level of play throughout its Big East schedule.
Yes, it will be interesting. So far we have played above expectations (but for the Temple game). I'm hoping we keep it up, but it's hardly a sure thing.
But questions of success will extend past this season. Is Thompson going to be able to continually recruit the players needed to be competitive in the Big East? And are kids going to want to play in the Princeton offense? One of the reasons Kentucky’s John Calipari recruits so well is that kids want to play in his kind of system — teach them some basic principles, spread them out and give them creative license to attack. How many blue chippers out there are dreaming of mastering the back-cut in the Princeton offense? Can’t be many.
This is the only place in the article where he really comes out and says that the Princeton may be inhibiting recruiting. We have answers to that, I think (see Vern, Austin, Chris and especially Greg), but he's hardly the only writer to suggest it.
On balance, I think he has a mixture of compliments for and doubts about our program, and is saying time will tell. JT3 has sold me on his system, but he hasn't sold everybody yet. I honestly don't think it's that big a deal, and I think it's great that a NYT writer is paying attention to our program.
Now, I think he would have been more analytically sound if he had said more about our poor rebounding, and discussed our defense and chemistry last year, not just the Princeton. But I have pretty low expectations for sportswriters in blogs, and that's a lot to expect. I think it was an incomplete piece, but far from a harsh one.
We have about 18+ more games in which to answer those questions more emphatically. Will we? I'll be rooting as hard as anyone for it.