bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Feb 15, 2010 14:05:18 GMT -5
My only complaint about the coaching is that he should play Vee about ten minutes a game even if he makes mistakes. Tell the kid to play full out disruptive defense for four or five minutes each half, play it relatively safe on offense, and let Chris get a breather mid-half to gather himself. When Chris is struggling, playing through it just hasn't worked. Point guards need a break in each half because they don't have many seconds away from the play on offense or defense. They don't get chances to jog down the court and wait for the play to come to them. It doesn't really help to have them play a passive role on some possessions while another guard sets up the offense. That just takes them out of their game.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 15, 2010 14:11:13 GMT -5
My only complaint about the coaching is that he should play Vee about ten minutes a game even if he makes mistakes. Tell the kid to play full out disruptive defense for four or five minutes each half, play it relatively safe on offense, and let Chris get a breather mid-half to gather himself. When Chris is struggling, playing through it just hasn't worked. Point guards need a break in each half because they don't have many seconds away from the play on offense or defense. They don't get chances to jog down the court and wait for the play to come to them. It doesn't really help to have them play a passive role on some possessions while another guard sets up the offense. That just takes them out of their game. I agree with you BMartin. Everyone benefits from sitting out a few minutes, catching one's breath, listening to the coach, and seeing the game from a different perspective. When one is right in the middle of it, it is very tough to see it objectively. Sitting on the sideline for a few minutes can provide a valuable perspective on what the other team is doing as well as what some of your teammates are doing. And, like you said, it takes the pressure off for a few minutes. Gives a player a chance to gather himself and prepare to jump back in. Vee has made some errors, but he has made something positive happen almost every time he's been on the court -- no matter how short the time. My personal belief is he has a lot to contribute.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,547
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 15, 2010 14:31:43 GMT -5
My only complaint about the coaching is that he should play Vee about ten minutes a game even if he makes mistakes. Tell the kid to play full out disruptive defense for four or five minutes each half, play it relatively safe on offense, and let Chris get a breather mid-half to gather himself. When Chris is struggling, playing through it just hasn't worked. Point guards need a break in each half because they don't have many seconds away from the play on offense or defense. They don't get chances to jog down the court and wait for the play to come to them. It doesn't really help to have them play a passive role on some possessions while another guard sets up the offense. That just takes them out of their game. +1 But then I guess that is why I am not the coach.
|
|
swhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by swhoya on Feb 15, 2010 14:34:25 GMT -5
After a loss like that (which does hurt), these "the coach has serious issues" threads are as predictable as they are ridiculous.
Does III have flaws in his coaching style? Sure. To me, the rebounding and our zone defense are at the top of the list--I don't have a problem with the style of offense.
But at the end of the day, results are hard to argue with. The man has run an incredibly clean program that every alum should be proud of, and has taken a team that was irrelevant back to one of the premier programs in the country (last season being the lone exception). We're still a top 20 team, and have been consistently. How often was that the case in Pop's last seasons, or at any point during the Esh years? How many coaches have consistently had teams as solid as he has put together?
And who else would you take? Point one coach out to me that runs a clean program and doesn't have flaws in their coaching abilities. And if you can even do that, you better also be sure that it's a coach that GU can afford.
Flaws? Yes, but that's no different than any other coach. And perhaps I'm a bit of a homer for this coach and team, but I have a very difficult time coming up with a coach I'd rather have in his place. We need to solve our recurring issues against these "easier" teams. But the tone of some of the posters here (and what their complaints imply) is just...silly.
|
|
757hoyafan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,999
|
Post by 757hoyafan on Feb 15, 2010 14:38:05 GMT -5
After a loss like that (which does hurt), these "the coach has serious issues" threads are as predictable as they are ridiculous. Pretty much..........
|
|
hoya73
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,222
|
Post by hoya73 on Feb 15, 2010 14:58:30 GMT -5
It may be too late in the season to start giving Vee 10 minutes per game despite mistakes. With every remaining game both crucial and against a tough opponent, those mistakes could be too costly. Hollis basically provides breather minutes for all 3 perimeter players, with Jason moving to point when Chris is off the floor. If Chris (or Austin or Jason) needs more respite, it seems Hollis has developed enough to play more minutes as a perimeter sub. I have never had a problem with a seven man rotation, and still don't. I'm also a fan of every Hoya player, and hope Vee sees plenty of minutes during his 4 year Hoya career. Not necessarily this season.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Feb 15, 2010 15:51:52 GMT -5
Vee may make some mistakes if you put him out there now, but I think after Rutgers we have to look at these upcoming games as preparation for the Big East tournament and NCAA tournament. We are not going to win the Big East regular season title so give Vee and Henry a few minutes in real games so they are ready when/if you need minutes from them in tournament games. Frankly, I don't think we can win the BET without some more bench minutes.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,924
|
Post by NCHoya on Feb 15, 2010 16:40:51 GMT -5
My only complaint about the coaching is that he should play Vee about ten minutes a game even if he makes mistakes. Tell the kid to play full out disruptive defense for four or five minutes each half, play it relatively safe on offense, and let Chris get a breather mid-half to gather himself. When Chris is struggling, playing through it just hasn't worked. Point guards need a break in each half because they don't have many seconds away from the play on offense or defense. They don't get chances to jog down the court and wait for the play to come to them. It doesn't really help to have them play a passive role on some possessions while another guard sets up the offense. That just takes them out of their game. I like this thinking, but is Vee ready for those minutes? I think defensively he is good enough, I would like to see 3 give it a try but maybe not against Cuse.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,352
|
Post by calhoya on Feb 15, 2010 17:11:18 GMT -5
It's not just Vee. Sims would benefit from time and there have been numerous opportunities when a couple of minutes of time would not jeopardize the outcome.
|
|
richfame
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by richfame on Feb 15, 2010 17:46:22 GMT -5
CAL, MARTIN- There is a reason why these guys are not playing.. Sims had all the chances in the world to be the 6th m an on this team and failed miserably. Sims is not the answer to they hoyas problems. YOu know what is? Our all americans and other stars showing consistent effort. Yea that means tough D when the shots arent faling or when its not a nationaly televised game.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 15, 2010 19:27:42 GMT -5
My only complaint about the coaching is that he should play Vee about ten minutes a game even if he makes mistakes. Tell the kid to play full out disruptive defense for four or five minutes each half, play it relatively safe on offense, and let Chris get a breather mid-half to gather himself. When Chris is struggling, playing through it just hasn't worked. Point guards need a break in each half because they don't have many seconds away from the play on offense or defense. They don't get chances to jog down the court and wait for the play to come to them. It doesn't really help to have them play a passive role on some possessions while another guard sets up the offense. That just takes them out of their game. I like this thinking, but is Vee ready for those minutes? I think defensively he is good enough, I would like to see 3 give it a try but maybe not against Cuse. I think the team can handle having a slightly shaky point guard for 4-5 minutes if he's playing w/ the other four starters. Jerelle's offensive game is basically non existent and he gets minutes.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSouth on Feb 15, 2010 20:44:00 GMT -5
Lots of things being addressed in this discussion: Development - Any criticism of JTIII's ability to develop players seems laughable. There are few coaches I have seen who can develop talent as well as JT3. This was apparent in his first two years with Bowman, Ashanti, and Cook's development. Next, PE Jr., Hibbert, and JWall all developed incredible. (Green was always a monster/predator). This season, I think you can see the steps forward that Austin, JV, and Clark have taken. Criticizing his ability to develop talent just doesn't make sense to me. Recruiting - I think there is some valid criticism in this regard. He has recruited top talent, but has been unable to recruit/retain the type of depth we should have. If Rivers, Macklin, and Omar would all have stuck on campus, this would be a very deep and much more experienced squad. None of those three players would be difference makers, but there is no doubt in my mind that each would make contributions and likely receive minutes this season. In Game Coaching - I think just like players, coaches have bad games as well. We have been on here many times this season saying that JT3 flat out coached the other team (Pitt, UConn, Duke, Nova) and other times saying he didn't make the proper adjustments. He is getting a lot of flak about not adjusting on the fly to adjust match-ups, but I think that is much easier said than done. The other team knows where they are weak at certain times and will compensate with rotations, double teams, etc. If you try to force an issue, then you are just as likely to take yourself out of running a good offense. That said, there were clearly times in the game when we should have used Monroe inside more, and he could have, probably should have, scored 30 points or had 5 more assists. He simply is a player that Rutgers can't stop, and I agree that it is frustrating to not see him being used when everyone in the arena knows he can't be stopped. Overall though, I think JT3 had done a good job in game coaching this season. Some games he has not been spot on, but in other games he has been a master tactician. Vernon Macklin, Rivers and Wattad wouldnt make a difference on this team? OK... Macklin or Vaugh? Who you got?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 15, 2010 20:49:57 GMT -5
Macklin and Rivers would be terrific role players -- except they thought they were far better than that and would not accept those roles. Ergo, this discussion is pointless.
Macklin or Vaughan? No question. Vaughan hands down. Rebouding, D, presence inside, working the JT3 O smoothly with Greg, great attitude, great kid, team player. Not even close. Julian is our man.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSouth on Feb 15, 2010 20:56:54 GMT -5
After a loss like that (which does hurt), these "the coach has serious issues" threads are as predictable as they are ridiculous. Does III have flaws in his coaching style? Sure. To me, the rebounding and our zone defense are at the top of the list--I don't have a problem with the style of offense. But at the end of the day, results are hard to argue with. The man has run an incredibly clean program that every alum should be proud of, and has taken a team that was irrelevant back to one of the premier programs in the country (last season being the lone exception). We're still a top 20 team, and have been consistently. How often was that the case in Pop's last seasons, or at any point during the Esh years? How many coaches have consistently had teams as solid as he has put together? And who else would you take? Point one coach out to me that runs a clean program and doesn't have flaws in their coaching abilities. And if you can even do that, you better also be sure that it's a coach that GU can afford. Flaws? Yes, but that's no different than any other coach. And perhaps I'm a bit of a homer for this coach and team, but I have a very difficult time coming up with a coach I'd rather have in his place. We need to solve our recurring issues against these "easier" teams. But the tone of some of the posters here (and what their complaints imply) is just...silly. Silly? RIght now UCONN is beating NOVA. G-TOwn could be vying for a #1 seed if it wasn't for the USF and RU losses. And you call criticism silly? You're a MS'er. Mediocrity settler. You prefer to pooh pooh loses like that. I look at the bigger picture. Call it silly if you want to. Losing in that fashion is coaching my friend. I like JTII but he needs to be held accountable.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSouth on Feb 15, 2010 20:59:51 GMT -5
CAL, MARTIN- There is a reason why these guys are not playing.. Sims had all the chances in the world to be the 6th m an on this team and failed miserably. Sims is not the answer to they hoyas problems. YOu know what is? Our all americans and other stars showing consistent effort. Yea that means tough D when the shots arent faling or when its not a nationaly televised game. If you wear them out game after game with 35+ minutes they will continue to FAIL miserably like yesterday.
|
|
swhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by swhoya on Feb 15, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Flaws? Yes, but that's no different than any other coach. And perhaps I'm a bit of a homer for this coach and team, but I have a very difficult time coming up with a coach I'd rather have in his place. We need to solve our recurring issues against these "easier" teams. But the tone of some of the posters here (and what their complaints imply) is just...silly. Silly? RIght now UCONN is beating NOVA. G-TOwn could be vying for a #1 seed if it wasn't for the USF and RU losses. And you call criticism silly? You're a MS'er. Mediocrity settler. You prefer to pooh pooh loses like that. I look at the bigger picture. Call it silly if you want to. Losing in that fashion is coaching my friend. I like JTII but he needs to be held accountable. Ok, so hold him accountable for the loss...are you going to also give him credit for the fact that we were in a position to get a #1 seed? I find it funny that you blame him for missing the #1 seed, but seem to ignore he was the coach that got us there. I'm sorry, but it seems that you're the one missing the bigger picture. Would a #1 seed be nice? Of course. But before III, when was the last time we could even sniff a #1 seed? I wasn't aware that getting a #2 or #3 seed was mediocre. 99% of programs would kill to ever be in position to get a top 3 seed, much less to have had a chance at #1. And you ignore my other questions: who is this holy coach that doesn't have flaws that you would prefer to have in his place? Right, that's what I thought. You should consider your perspective.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 15, 2010 21:30:07 GMT -5
Don't you get it? HE'S NOT ACCEPTING MEDIOCRITY! IT'S ALL YOU LOSERS WHO MAKE US WEAK! ONLY HOYASOUTH CAN MAKE THIS TEAM GREAT!
There's nothing funnier to me than the thought that criticism on this message board is somehow going to get Thompson to alter his coaching style.
We bitch on this board because we're fans, and we need somewhere to vent. Or because we like discussing basketball.
I'm not a huge fan of the over-emotional bashing, but at least that's honest. The idea that when you complain you are doing it to help is silly. No one's listening, dude.
|
|
b52legend
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 453
|
Post by b52legend on Feb 15, 2010 23:07:45 GMT -5
Macklin and Rivers would be terrific role players -- except they thought they were far better than that and would not accept those roles. Ergo, this discussion is pointless. Macklin or Vaughan? No question. Vaughan hands down. Rebouding, D, presence inside, working the JT3 O smoothly with Greg, great attitude, great kid, team player. Not even close. Julian is our man. agreed. My point was that the players we lost would help this team immensly, but I can't sat we would have any different record right now with those guys on the squad. Maybe give or take 1 loss. As to Macklin v. Vaghan, clealry Vaughn. Vaughn has offensive moves, can dribble, and pass the ball well. I like Macklin and wish we had him, but I am not sure he can do any of these things.
|
|
|
Post by nyhoya2 on Feb 15, 2010 23:36:39 GMT -5
Part of the game-to-game inconsistency can be attributed to having no bench. Somebody mentioned ''no margin for error" the other day and I completely agree. In a perfect world, our McD All-Americans step up every game and give a consistent effort. Unfortunately, that's just not realistic with 18-21 year olds. Guys are going to pace themselves every now and then and not give 100% every night. There is no one on the bench to challenge most of our starters minutes. If the starters have an off night or get in foul trouble, we're in trouble.
Those are two reasons why so many on this board think Vee and Sims should be given a few more looks every other game. Admittedly, the Sims experiment has produced disappointing results thus far. A third reason for it is to avoid additional transfers which would make this an ongoing topic/ problem again next year.
|
|
b52legend
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 453
|
Post by b52legend on Feb 16, 2010 0:11:14 GMT -5
Part of the game-to-game inconsistency can be attributed to having no bench. Somebody mentioned ''no margin for error" the other day and I completely agree. In a perfect world, our McD All-Americans step up every game and give a consistent effort. Unfortunately, that's just not realistic with 18-21 year olds. Guys are going to pace themselves every now and then and not give 100% every night. There is no one on the bench to challenge most of our starters minutes. If the starters have an off night or get in foul trouble, we're in trouble. Those are two reasons why so many on this board think Vee and Sims should be given a few more looks every other game. Admittedly, the Sims experiment has produced disappointing results thus far. A third reason for it is to avoid additional transfers which would make this an ongoing topic/ problem again next year. I don't think minutes played has had much to do with our transfers. Macklin, Rivers, and Wattad all got minutes at GTown, with Rivers getting substantial minutes. Wattad clearly saw that he was not going to get minutes in the future, which may have driven his transfer, but as to Macklin and Rivers I am not sure what drove their moves. Rivers wanted to be a starter I suppose, which he was never going to be at Georgetown, and rightfully so. His transfer I have no problem with. If he wants to be a starter, what can JT3 do to keep him around? Pretty much nothing. Macklin may have had issues with what he perceived to be our offense, but he almost certainly would have played huge minutes last year and been starting or getting 20+ minutes a game this season. His transfer is more upsetting, because I feel like promises could have been made to Macklin by JT3 without them being explicit lies, as they would have been if made to Rivers.
|
|