hoyaalf
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
I like what your doing very much. Why squirrel hate me?
Posts: 688
|
Post by hoyaalf on Feb 15, 2010 16:52:52 GMT -5
BTW, JTII said, "Isnt this fun? at the end of reg versus UNC in NCAA loud enough for TH to hear.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlemania on Feb 15, 2010 21:49:52 GMT -5
Comparisons to the "tougher" Hoya teams of the 80's don't work -- as NCHoya points out, those teams were designed for a different time. It is not an accident that the program started to fade with the advent of the shot clock and the 3-ball. Today's game puts a higher premium on speed, athleticsm and skill -- Michael Graham or Ronnie Highsmith hip-checking someone into the third row might appear "tougher," but you can't win with that now.
|
|
cnyhoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 399
|
Post by cnyhoya on Feb 15, 2010 22:39:16 GMT -5
Comparisons to the "tougher" Hoya teams of the 80's don't work -- as NCHoya points out, those teams were designed for a different time. It is not an accident that the program started to fade with the advent of the shot clock and the 3-ball. Today's game puts a higher premium on speed, athleticsm and skill -- Michael Graham or Ronnie Highsmith hip-checking someone into the third row might appear "tougher," but you can't win with that now. Sure you can. Tough rebounding, monster slams, and defensive intimidation to the point where the opposing team doesn't even want to venture into the paint? I think you can win with that.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 16, 2010 9:12:48 GMT -5
Comparisons to the "tougher" Hoya teams of the 80's don't work -- as NCHoya points out, those teams were designed for a different time. It is not an accident that the program started to fade with the advent of the shot clock and the 3-ball. Today's game puts a higher premium on speed, athleticsm and skill -- Michael Graham or Ronnie Highsmith hip-checking someone into the third row might appear "tougher," but you can't win with that now. Sure you can. Tough rebounding, monster slams, and defensive intimidation to the point where the opposing team doesn't even want to venture into the paint? I think you can win with that. As Pitt has shown. Remember Sam Young and Dajuan Blair?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 16, 2010 9:35:11 GMT -5
Perhaps the more relevant question is:
Are Hoya FANS soft? Unable to withstand any losses, miscues, turnovers, missed shots, poor passes, or disappointments of any kind whatsoever without reverting to total meltdown and unconstrained recriminations, accusations and.... finger pointing?
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Feb 16, 2010 9:41:57 GMT -5
Sure you can. Tough rebounding, monster slams, and defensive intimidation to the point where the opposing team doesn't even want to venture into the paint? I think you can win with that. As Pitt has shown. Remember Sam Young and Dajuan Blair? I do not agree. Sam Young was not a bruiser at all. Dajuan Blair, yes, he was a throwback, however, he was also a one of a kind player in college the last 2 years. Again, you can always find exceptions, but the current college game is built on spreading the floor, using a player's skills to gain an advantage and shooting the 3. No one is saying you cannot win with the dominant rebounding and defense, but good luck finding quality players who can play that style. These kids do not want to be bruising forwards who can barely dribble a basketball, they want to develop a full skill set and use their athleticism to excel. Time to move on.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Feb 16, 2010 9:42:47 GMT -5
Perhaps the more relevant question is: Are Hoya FANS soft?Unable to withstand any losses, miscues, turnovers, missed shots, poor passes, or disappointments of any kind whatsoever without reverting to total meltdown and unconstrained recriminations, accusations and.... finger pointing? Terrific post.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Feb 16, 2010 11:54:25 GMT -5
We are not a soft team.
We just aren't a dominant team, despite our ranking. And even dominant teams can be beaten. South Carolina beat Kentucky this year.
JTIII has said many times that we can beat anybody in the country, and we can be beaten by any team in the country. And we have shown that this year and even last year where we beat UCONN and lost to St. John's multiple times.
I don't buy the argument that JT2's teams of the 80's would not work in this time period.
Well-disciplined, defensive oriented teams that can rebound is not a style, its an essential fundamental for success.
its no different than in football to be able to run the football and stop the run.
The reason's JT2's teams slid as his time went on really had nothing to do with his style of play. As a matter of fact, we probably would have lost more games without that defensive pressure and rebounding
JT2's teams slid because JT2 stopped caring about coaching once he won he National title, and definitely after the Olympics. His recruiting slipped (and he never cared for recruiting anyway), most of the guys he recruited could not hit an outside shot to save their lives (and i'm not talking 3's), and even his defense became less disciplined and team's overall fundamentals continued to erode as time went on. His guards and wing players he recruited paled in comparison to the Bill Martin's, Wingate's, Reggie Williams's, Floyd's , Duren's etc., But because he had a big man normally, and we hustled on defense and the boards, we always were competitive. Add a guy like Iverson and Page on your team, and your team will be even better despite its flaws.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Feb 16, 2010 12:20:02 GMT -5
We are not a soft team. We just aren't a dominant team, despite our ranking. And even dominant teams can be beaten. South Carolina beat Kentucky this year. JTIII has said many times that we can beat anybody in the country, and we can be beaten by any team in the country. And we have shown that this year and even last year where we beat UCONN and lost to St. John's multiple times. I don't buy the argument that JT2's teams of the 80's would not work in this time period. Well-disciplined, defensive oriented teams that can rebound is not a style, its an essential fundamental for success. its no different than in football to be able to run the football and stop the run. The reason's JT2's teams slid as his time went on really had nothing to do with his style of play. As a matter of fact, we probably would have lost more games without that defensive pressure and rebounding JT2's teams slid because JT2 stopped caring about coaching once he won he National title, and definitely after the Olympics. His recruiting slipped (and he never cared for recruiting anyway), most of the guys he recruited could not hit an outside shot to save their lives (and i'm not talking 3's), and even his defense became less disciplined and team's overall fundamentals continued to erode as time went on. His guards and wing players he recruited paled in comparison to the Bill Martin's, Wingate's, Reggie Williams's, Floyd's , Duren's etc., But because he had a big man normally, and we hustled on defense and the boards, we always were competitive. Add a guy like Iverson and Page on your team, and your team will be even better despite its flaws. I agreed that this style would certainly work today (and someone pointed out Pitt used it last year), but where are you finding the guys to run this style? At the Top 100 recruit level, very few kids have the qualities you speak of.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlemania on Feb 16, 2010 12:22:19 GMT -5
. I don't buy the argument that JT2's teams of the 80's would not work in this time period. Well-disciplined, defensive oriented teams that can rebound is not a style, its an essential fundamental for success. its no different than in football to be able to run the football and stop the run. The reason's JT2's teams slid as his time went on really had nothing to do with his style of play. As a matter of fact, we probably would have lost more games without that defensive pressure and rebounding JT2's teams slid because JT2 stopped caring about coaching once he won he National title, and definitely after the Olympics. His recruiting slipped (and he never cared for recruiting anyway), most of the guys he recruited could not hit an outside shot to save their lives (and i'm not talking 3's), and even his defense became less disciplined and team's overall fundamentals continued to erode as time went on. His guards and wing players he recruited paled in comparison to the Bill Martin's, Wingate's, Reggie Williams's, Floyd's , Duren's etc. Not to digress, but you win in football with the pass, not the run -- from what I've read, the statistic that correlates most with success is yards per pass, not yards per carry. To the extent successful teams rack up a lot of rushing yards, it is because they have already moved the ball with the pass and thus can afford to eat up the clock with the run. There is a reason why teams built around guys like Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders, Earl Campbell and Walter Payton (before Jim McMahon arrived) haven't won many rings. I don't really understand your argument that JT II's teams could be successful today -- sure, defense and rebounding matter (and teams that do that will always be competitive), but you've conceded that the lack of outside shooting was a factor in the program's decline (and unless you know him personally, "not caring" about coaching seems a little strong -- "burned out" might be more accurate). You also point out that the team suffered when the quality of his recruits at the two and the three deteriorated -- those are exactly the kinds of players teams need to be consistently successful under today's rules. Also query what JTII's record might have looked like had he been required to actually play anybody outside of his conference schedule -- coaches can't get over with cupcake scheduling now.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Feb 16, 2010 13:08:28 GMT -5
You win football games by controlling the line of scrimmage on both sides of the football.
that means, you can run the football and stop the run. less likelihood of turning the ball over through the ground than the air. and that works in all weather conditions.
that means you control the time of posession and can physically wear down your opponent.
Or you can stand back their all day long like Tom Brady did with the patriots until a WR gets open. But, that didn't work in the Super Bowl against the Giants when he couldn't stand back their all day long.
As far as JT2, he stopped caring. He knew he always had a job once he won the National Championship here. Heck, he was told to get the team to the NIT a couple of times when he was hired. Their were plenty of great basketball players that wanted to come to G-town, and JT2 did not even make the effort or was indifferent toward. He hated recruiting and hated to beg a player to come to his school. And once he won the National title, he didn't have to beg anymore.
JT2's team's of the 80's would work today. That style still works. Mourning's 1989 team would still work.
The reason JT2's team weren't as succesful as time went on weren't because of his style of play or philosophy, which was asserted. It was because of JT2's lack of motivation and his complacency in recruiting and coaching and the erosion of the fundamentals of basketball. JT2 did enough to get by, and be competitive in his latter years.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Feb 16, 2010 13:12:53 GMT -5
I agreed that this style would certainly work today (and someone pointed out Pitt used it last year), but where are you finding the guys to run this style? At the Top 100 recruit level, very few kids have the qualities you speak of. The ability to run the floor, shoot the basketball, and play with effort on defense? Those kids are hard to find?
|
|
cnyhoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 399
|
Post by cnyhoya on Feb 16, 2010 13:23:07 GMT -5
We are not a soft team. We just aren't a dominant team, despite our ranking. And even dominant teams can be beaten. South Carolina beat Kentucky this year. JTIII has said many times that we can beat anybody in the country, and we can be beaten by any team in the country. And we have shown that this year and even last year where we beat UCONN and lost to St. John's multiple times. I don't buy the argument that JT2's teams of the 80's would not work in this time period. Well-disciplined, defensive oriented teams that can rebound is not a style, its an essential fundamental for success. its no different than in football to be able to run the football and stop the run. The reason's JT2's teams slid as his time went on really had nothing to do with his style of play. As a matter of fact, we probably would have lost more games without that defensive pressure and rebounding JT2's teams slid because JT2 stopped caring about coaching once he won he National title, and definitely after the Olympics. His recruiting slipped (and he never cared for recruiting anyway), most of the guys he recruited could not hit an outside shot to save their lives (and i'm not talking 3's), and even his defense became less disciplined and team's overall fundamentals continued to erode as time went on. His guards and wing players he recruited paled in comparison to the Bill Martin's, Wingate's, Reggie Williams's, Floyd's , Duren's etc., But because he had a big man normally, and we hustled on defense and the boards, we always were competitive. Add a guy like Iverson and Page on your team, and your team will be even better despite its flaws. I agreed that this style would certainly work today (and someone pointed out Pitt used it last year), but where are you finding the guys to run this style? At the Top 100 recruit level, very few kids have the qualities you speak of. I think there are enough kids who can bring toughness and rebounding. Not necessarily at a Michael Graham level (which, btw, is a level that can no longer be attained, since it has reached demi-god status in the minds of us old-timers), but at least at an above-average level. But I think the point of this thread is that those traits could be more strongly emphasized in the program. Both on the recruiting level, and in practice. You don't need top 25 recruits to do that. I'm not trying to bash Coach at all, but I would like to see us at times be less cerebral out there, and more physical.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Feb 16, 2010 13:28:35 GMT -5
I agreed that this style would certainly work today (and someone pointed out Pitt used it last year), but where are you finding the guys to run this style? At the Top 100 recruit level, very few kids have the qualities you speak of. The ability to run the floor, shoot the basketball, and play with effort on defense? Those kids are hard to find? Listen, all I can say at this point is the players that played for JT2 and the players of today are just different and leave it at that. We can go through the teams and find exceptions, blah blah. The game has changed SOOOOO much since those days. Players are so much more focused on building multiple skillsets and long-range shooting. We can argue all day, but those players, by and large, were not available back then. So back to the original point, if you judge the current Hoya players by the standards set during the Big East heyday in the 80s, they are soft. If you look at our team relative to their other college peers, there is no way you can conclude the current Hoyas are soft. It is as simple as that.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Feb 16, 2010 13:45:13 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out how different JT2's players were back in the 80's? Like they were some neanderthal type players or something?
were the All-America players different from the ones of today?
no
JT2's teams didn't walk out with a pair of boxing gloves to go with their Nike's back then.
I think you are buying into the stereotype that plagued G-town's rep during that time period. Granted, they weren't going to back down if a fight was started, but overall they played well-disciplined basketball on both ends of the court. The great teams of today do that still.
the main difference of today is the emphasis of the 3-pt. shot. in fact, if you ask the coaches of today who were there back then, they will tell you that the 3-pt. shot killed the game of basketball. many kids today do not have many skills besides chucking up 3's all day. they can't even hit 15-ft jump shots, they lack the basic fundamentals. which is an art of itself. players were much more multi-skilled back then, then they are now.
as far as the original point, i don't think folks are comparing the Hoyas of then than they are now. JT2's teams were never credited for how mentally tough and focused they were, only highlighted and criticized for being so-called physically intimidating. Which was kinda funny. They played in the Big East. which had guys from Jersey, Philly, Boston, Providence, New York City, etc on opposing teams. What would guys from those areas be scared of the Hoyas for?
i don't think we are soft with JTIII's current group. but we aren't as mentally tough as we could be. But that is an extension of our team's development and life during the course of a basketball season. not because Julian Vaughn won't shave his head bald like Michael Graham.
|
|
cnyhoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 399
|
Post by cnyhoya on Feb 16, 2010 13:57:23 GMT -5
The ability to run the floor, shoot the basketball, and play with effort on defense? Those kids are hard to find? Listen, all I can say at this point is the players that played for JT2 and the players of today are just different and leave it at that. We can go through the teams and find exceptions, blah blah. The game has changed SOOOOO much since those days. Players are so much more focused on building multiple skillsets and long-range shooting. We can argue all day, but those players, by and large, were not available back then. So back to the original point, if you judge the current Hoya players by the standards set during the Big East heyday in the 80s, they are soft. If you look at our team relative to their other college peers, there is no way you can conclude the current Hoyas are soft. It is as simple as that. I'm sorry NC, but I just don't think the game of basketball has changed that much. But you are right insofar as it is the current NCAA field, against which our Hoyas should be measured, not the ghosts of Hoyas past, and that is all I care about.
|
|
hoya95
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by hoya95 on Feb 16, 2010 16:01:45 GMT -5
I don't think you even need to look back at the '80s teams. Hate to sound like an ESPN guy, but the biggest difference that I see between this year's team and the 2007 one (even though this year isn't over) is the bench. In particular, the defensive toughness that Patrick Ewing and Rivers brought off the bench would be invaluable to this year's team. Nothing we can do about it now, of course.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 16, 2010 16:09:41 GMT -5
I don't think there is such a thing as a dominant team in college basketball anymore. All major talent leaves for the NBA, so most good teams are left with unexperienced talent or experienced lesser talent. I don't think it's fair to complain that we're not a dominant team when no one is a dominant team. There are legitimately 10 or more teams that can win the championship this year.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 16, 2010 16:46:10 GMT -5
I don't think you even need to look back at the '80s teams. Hate to sound like an ESPN guy, but the biggest difference that I see between this year's team and the 2007 one (even though this year isn't over) is the bench. In particular, the defensive toughness that Patrick Ewing and Rivers brought off the bench would be invaluable to this year's team. Nothing we can do about it now, of course. If I'm looking at defense, I don't think it was just Pat and Rivers. Of far more importance was a giant, 7' shot-blocker and a PF with Greg's mobility and a killer instinct that I'm not sure anyone has on this team (on defense, at least). It's weird to give credit to those defenses and ignore that whole Roy Hibbert component.
|
|
hoya95
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by hoya95 on Feb 16, 2010 16:52:00 GMT -5
I don't think you even need to look back at the '80s teams. Hate to sound like an ESPN guy, but the biggest difference that I see between this year's team and the 2007 one (even though this year isn't over) is the bench. In particular, the defensive toughness that Patrick Ewing and Rivers brought off the bench would be invaluable to this year's team. Nothing we can do about it now, of course. If I'm looking at defense, I don't think it was just Pat and Rivers. Of far more importance was a giant, 7' shot-blocker and a PF with Greg's mobility and a killer instinct that I'm not sure anyone has on this team (on defense, at least). It's weird to give credit to those defenses and ignore that whole Roy Hibbert component. Never said it was just Ewing and Rivers, and I never said anything critical about Roy or anybody else. But Pat was a huge help inside, and Rivers was a huge help in perimeter defense. We really miss guys who could fill roles like that.
|
|