Dhall
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by Dhall on Feb 16, 2010 17:15:14 GMT -5
Without getting into some of the namecalling above, it is clear that JTIII's approach here is less "aggressive" than many other coaches past and present, including his father. We don't press, we don't send five guys after offensive rebounds, we don't run alley-oop plays, we don't send our lead guard to the hoop 10 times per game trying to draw contact, etc. Someone can call that "soft", but I would just say they are strategically driven decisions. There is no right answer, because a lot of those things can really backfire and lead to losses just like the more conservative approach that Georgetown takes sometimes leads to losses.
The Hoyas with Ewing were "tough" and beat a "soft" Houston team. The Knicks with Ewing were "tough" and lost to the Houston Rockets. Go figure. Ideally, players would stick around long enough and be talented enough to be able to play both aggressively and conservatively depending on the opponent's stengths and weaknesses.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 16, 2010 17:25:41 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. Agree that it's weird, but for some reason, it seems most people do it.
|
|
cnyhoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 399
|
Post by cnyhoya on Feb 16, 2010 17:40:23 GMT -5
Without getting into some of the namecalling above, it is clear that JTIII's approach here is less "aggressive" than many other coaches past and present, including his father. We don't press, we don't send five guys after offensive rebounds, we don't run alley-oop plays, we don't send our lead guard to the hoop 10 times per game trying to draw contact, etc. Someone can call that "soft", but I would just say they are strategically driven decisions. There is no right answer, because a lot of those things can really backfire and lead to losses just like the more conservative approach that Georgetown takes sometimes leads to losses. I agree Dhall. That's why I question the title of this thread and wonder if "cerebral" is a better description than "soft" I certainly think it applies to the coach.
|
|
hoyaalf
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
I like what your doing very much. Why squirrel hate me?
Posts: 688
|
Post by hoyaalf on Feb 16, 2010 20:50:30 GMT -5
Thanks.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 16, 2010 21:24:18 GMT -5
I guess my point is that people are so wildly focused on "soft" and "tough."
I just want better. I don't know if that 2007 team was that much tougher -- certainly physically it wasn't anything close to the 1980s teams. And mentally -- well, I think we ascribe that to them after the fact, because they won. Which makes me suspect.
I think lack of depth is a critical key here. It's not going 8 or 9 deep -- it's that we need three or four guys to play well offensively, but we really only have five guys who can. There's not a lot of margin for error there.
I do think defense is a place to look -- causes of the losses:
ODU - Offense Marquette - Defense or even, but neither awful Villanova - Even, but neither awful Syracuse - Both awful, offense worse South Florida - Defense Rutgers - Defense
It's pretty evenly split -- and I'd remove the Nova, Quette and Cuse losses as either just road losses and one giant egg. Once you have the other three, there's two Ds and one O, but the recent losses are both primarily defense-driven. Not to say we had a good offense in either, but the defense was worse.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlemania on Feb 16, 2010 22:55:06 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. Where to begin . . . If you're telling me that the keys to the Saints' Super Bowl run were Pierre Thomas and Reggie Bush, go to the back of the class. And the fact that you're using Tom Brady as your example notwithstanding three Super Bowl rings only reaffirms that you have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to know quite a bit about what was going on in JTII's head at the time -- did he tell you these things, or are you just guessing? Because if it is not the former, it must be the latter. The idea that the program declined solely because JTII took a powder is uninformed nonsense.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Feb 17, 2010 0:34:19 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. Where to begin . . . If you're telling me that the keys to the Saints' Super Bowl run were Pierre Thomas and Reggie Bush, go to the back of the class. And the fact that you're using Tom Brady as your example notwithstanding three Super Bowl rings only reaffirms that you have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to know quite a bit about what was going on in JTII's head at the time -- did he tell you these things, or are you just guessing? Because if it is not the former, it must be the latter. The idea that the program declined solely because JTII took a powder is uninformed nonsense. the_way often enjoys speaking in out-dated cliches. For example, Zo's 1989 team took 323 3-point attempts out of 1990 total attempts. That's 16.2% of their total attempts. Over the last seven years, six teams have gone below TWENTY percent, the lowest of which was 18.6%. Despite the 2358 data points over the last seven seasons that disagree with his assertion that Zo's 1989 team would work today, the_way will undoubtedly stand by his cliche.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Feb 17, 2010 8:09:18 GMT -5
Without getting into some of the namecalling above, it is clear that JTIII's approach here is less "aggressive" than many other coaches past and present, including his father. We don't press, we don't send five guys after offensive rebounds, we don't run alley-oop plays, we don't send our lead guard to the hoop 10 times per game trying to draw contact, etc. Someone can call that "soft", but I would just say they are strategically driven decisions. There is no right answer, because a lot of those things can really backfire and lead to losses just like the more conservative approach that Georgetown takes sometimes leads to losses. I agree Dhall. That's why I question the title of this thread and wonder if "cerebral" is a better description than "soft" I certainly think it applies to the coach. What makes JTIII's team so cerebral? Because his offense is called the Princeton offense? Being mentally tough is cerebral. I get what you are saying. I don't think its coach as oppose to it being the players. JTIII was the same guy who coached the 2007 team. The players pyschological makeup were different. That 2007 team, and the 2006 team that went to the sweet sixteen was a good combination of upperclassmen and underclassman. For the 2006 squad, you had at least 3 years of experienced players (Owens, Bowman, Cook) mixed in with some young talented underclassman (Wallace, Green, Hibbert). And with the final four team you had at least 3 years of experienced players (Wallace, Green, hibbert) mixed in with some young talented underclassman (Summers), mixed in with some solid role players (Sapp, Rivers, Ewing, Jr., and even Crawford and Macklin to some extent). I would say that Green and Ewing, Jr. both had a killer instinct in them. Wallace, had ice in his veins and could hit that 3 in clutch. I think this year's squad all have the same personality.....flat and stoic....kinda like our coach....JTIII. Now compare those teams with this year's team? we have the talent. but Monroe - underclassman Clark - underclassman Wright - a junior, but really playing his only 2nd full year. Vaughn - a junior, but only his 2nd year as a full-time player Thompson - freshman Benimon - freshman So out of that group, only Austin Freeman is a guy on our team with more than 2-year's experience playing for G-town. I think that is the main difference. To have a great team, you need a good blend of talent , in terms of skills and psychological makeup of the players. And you also need leadership. Its kinda hard to have that when you have only one guy on the squad in Freeman who is in his 3rd full year of playing basketball with the program. We are not soft, we just aren't ripe yet, we don't have the depth, and we don't have the killer instinct. However, every team, good or great, has flaws or issues holding them back. And despite ours, we have a talented starting 5 and a great coach. Thats why we are a top 10 team.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by tashoya on Feb 17, 2010 8:45:56 GMT -5
Strange. I've never thought of Greg Monroe or Chris Wright or Julian Vaughn or Hollis Thompson or Henry Sims or Jason Clark as flat or stoic much less both. Freeman? Maybe. But I think of him as more understated than flat or stoic.
|
|