|
Post by bigelephant on Jun 3, 2010 9:11:08 GMT -5
It is almost impossible to play a tenacious man defense when you have 7 players. The paradigm last year was to stay out of foul trouble ( all of them but especially the bigs). That mindset cannot produce the kind of defensive effort people want. This year we will have a full complement of legitimate players and this will open options on the defensive end that we have not seen in 2 years. The freshman always "remain to be seen" but I am hopeful Lubick and Starks can contribute - not as starters probably but as top quality reserves (at least the "do no harm" idea ) A lot of people feel Greg will be missed and he will but we have some quality new guys who should help us move forward. Personally, I think Greg would have benefitted greatly with another year - moved much closer to a degree - and made getting the degree more probable.But it is what it is and I am hopeful we will be better than last year. Kenner should answer some of the Questions -esp about the freshman.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 4, 2010 8:57:03 GMT -5
But speaking of personnel, we also have a real "second string" for the first time in awhile. This is addition by addition. It allows anyone who does not play defense to have a seat beside III until such a time as they seem to have learned how to play defense. To me this is as valuable as the practice bodies and injury insurance they provide. We need to be as serious about defense as we are about offense. Think about that moment III read the team the riot act when we were trying to turn the Syracuse game in the Garden into an offensive ping-pong match at 21-19. That's what I want to see every game. And now there's another tool to use to motivate everyone to play defense; actual lost playing time. I remember that play. We had just scored, and Cuse scored on a fast break layup. Unforgivable. III was off the bench immediately, and laid into 'em. I truly hope we see none of that type of play from the defense ever again. That said, we caught Cuse on Vee's floater, and steadily pulled away, though they made it somewhat interesting at the end.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 7, 2010 9:42:47 GMT -5
I've waited a long time to respond to this thread, but I think everyone who thinks we're in any way better without Greg is certifiable.
I don't care how good our guards are (and they are good), we are going into next year with one proven big who isn't very good at rebounding or playing thirty minutes.
Where is this a good thing? Especially for defense. Giga may be somewhat right that you can do it without height -- though that team just uglied everything up -- but it's not easy.
If Lubick or Sims or Abraham are quality defenders next year, yeah, this team could have a good defense. But odds are it won't.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,332
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 7, 2010 9:59:08 GMT -5
I've waited a long time to respond to this thread, but I think everyone who thinks we're in any way better without Greg is certifiable. I don't care how good our guards are (and they are good), we are going into next year with one proven big who isn't very good at rebounding or playing thirty minutes. Where is this a good thing? Especially for defense. Giga may be somewhat right that you can do it without height -- though that team just uglied everything up -- but it's not easy. If Lubick or Sims or Abraham are quality defenders next year, yeah, this team could have a good defense. But odds are it won't. Agree. And if Lubick/Sims/Abraham are quality defenders, imagine how good they'd be on the floor WITH Greg.
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Post by skyhoya on Jun 7, 2010 11:01:48 GMT -5
Get real Greg is gone, we have to look forward, the past is done. Let's see how good the recruiting was or really is.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jun 7, 2010 11:02:16 GMT -5
I've waited a long time to respond to this thread, but I think everyone who thinks we're in any way better without Greg is certifiable. I don't care how good our guards are (and they are good), we are going into next year with one proven big who isn't very good at rebounding or playing thirty minutes. Where is this a good thing? Especially for defense. Giga may be somewhat right that you can do it without height -- though that team just uglied everything up -- but it's not easy. If Lubick or Sims or Abraham are quality defenders next year, yeah, this team could have a good defense. But odds are it won't. Agreed. Even uglying it up, our ceiling might be Villanova's defense last year which was so good, we score 103 points against it. But at least it's something. We could compete on D that way. But if we don't mix it up and get physical (read: play the same way we did this year) this has the potential to be the worst defensive team we've had in a decade, no doubt.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jun 7, 2010 13:04:15 GMT -5
I've waited a long time to respond to this thread, but I think everyone who thinks we're in any way better without Greg is certifiable. I don't care how good our guards are (and they are good), we are going into next year with one proven big who isn't very good at rebounding or playing thirty minutes. Where is this a good thing? Especially for defense. Giga may be somewhat right that you can do it without height -- though that team just uglied everything up -- but it's not easy. If Lubick or Sims or Abraham are quality defenders next year, yeah, this team could have a good defense. But odds are it won't. Hm.. You really think anyone who thinks we could possibly finish eighth in this years Big East and make the NCAA tournament and possibly not get blown out in the first round is certifiable? I'd hate to hear what your expectations are then.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 7, 2010 13:22:20 GMT -5
I've waited a long time to respond to this thread, but I think everyone who thinks we're in any way better without Greg is certifiable. I don't care how good our guards are (and they are good), we are going into next year with one proven big who isn't very good at rebounding or playing thirty minutes. Where is this a good thing? Especially for defense. Giga may be somewhat right that you can do it without height -- though that team just uglied everything up -- but it's not easy. If Lubick or Sims or Abraham are quality defenders next year, yeah, this team could have a good defense. But odds are it won't. Hm.. You really think anyone who thinks we could possibly finish eighth in this years Big East and make the NCAA tournament and possibly not get blown out in the first round is certifiable? I'd hate to hear what your expectations are then. Huh? My direct quote: "I think everyone who thinks we're in any way better without Greg is certifiable." Do you think we're better without Greg? If so, then yes I think you are certifiable. If not, then maybe not. I'm not sure how to be clearer.
|
|
robbyt
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 334
|
Post by robbyt on Jun 7, 2010 14:51:05 GMT -5
I must be certifiable because I think we're better next year.
Besides the fact that a good player is leaving, it's as important what type of player is leaving and what type will be replacing him.
Greg is a great player. However:
a) Last year our post lineup was too thin to win in the Big East, Greg or no Greg. Our post lineup now is much deeper, beefier, more traditional lunchpail, and more intense. This is what the Big East requires for success, a rotation of big men. There doesn't need to be a superstar.
b) Playing "through Greg" required a pace that did not match CWright's high-intensity game and the team was often flipping and flopping between in limbo. Now we have Lubick and Sims who both play a high-intensity game, and we have no need to balance tempos because the tempo will be set by the backcourt.
c) we just added to three nasty, high bball IQ scoring guards another nasty, high bball IQ scoring guard in Starks.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jun 7, 2010 14:56:49 GMT -5
We willl be better without Greg if Nate and Moses provide the defense and physicality that Greg did not provide his 2 years here.
We were soft in the middle. And Greg, nice guy, passing ability, points, and all, was the reason for it. If Nate and Moses are what they are hyped to be, then we won't be soft in the paint anymore. we will be better off.
The key is what type of contribution Nate and Moses provide. It doesn't have to be All-big east numbers. Just physicality, defense, and shot-blocking in the paint. Role players who do the dirty work. Where we have a presence. Where opposing teams can't take whatever they want inside from us. Greg was not that type of player.
|
|
robbyt
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 334
|
Post by robbyt on Jun 7, 2010 15:07:52 GMT -5
I agree I like the platoon post of helmets and lunchpails much more than "the long experiment" we had last year. If everyone is solid and bangs we will wear down some teams. From what I saw of Nate on film and the McDonald's game, a physical presence is exactly who he is. Don't know anything about Moses. No sleeping on Benimon, Vaughan, and Sims, who wants to be good even if it seems to be taking a while.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jun 7, 2010 15:20:54 GMT -5
he's not saying you're crazy if you think we'll be better next year than we were this year. He's saying you're crazy if you think we'll be better next year with out greg than we would be with greg.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jun 7, 2010 18:39:50 GMT -5
Had Greg stayed, things wouldn't really change. For us to change as a group, Greg would have to move on. Being that he is a lotto pick/best player, a team takes the lead of their best player. Our style of play now just hasn't worked.
Where we need to go with the Lubick's and Moses' of the world and for the future in terms of big men, kind of flies in the face of the Greg Monroe style of basketball.
A transition needed to be made, and Greg leaving, just sped up that transition.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 7, 2010 19:42:38 GMT -5
Yes, HSB. I do think the_way is crazy.
But I also think people are way too optimistic if they think that Sims, Abraham and Lubick can make up for Greg, as well.
Do we have to do this every summer? Every guy we haven't seen is awesome. Never mind that neither Sims nor Vaughn has ever been a strong rebounder, that Lubick and Abraham are freshmen, and that Monroe was our leading rebounder, playmaker, and only big to play 30 minutes.
He wasn't perfect, but while I like the guys who are replacing him, none of them are able to play in the NBA next year.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Jun 8, 2010 13:25:30 GMT -5
Lubick and Moses could be there in a couple of years...also who knows, someone might have a stellar season and carry the team and make it. Thats why they play the games.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 8, 2010 14:27:32 GMT -5
Lubick and Moses could be there in a couple of years...also who knows, someone might have a stellar season and carry the team and make it. Thats why they play the games. Of course, I'll be watching. It's not impossible. I just hate this cycle: - Disappointing season blamed on players leaving and addition by subtraction concept introduced (never proven). Wasn't Summers the cancer? Sapp? Now it's Greg's softness that permeated the team? Give me a break.
- Wild expectations for new/bench players leading to unreasonable optimism and claims about "how deep we are" and "we should press because we've got 10 NBA players on our team."
- When the team doesn't perform, constant accusations at the coaching staff for not taking advantage said talent, depth, and press when all you've got is recruiting rankings and addition-by-subtraction theories to say we should be better.
Everything should come back to the staff, but I don't see a lot of reason for this team to be better than last year EXCEPT development. In other words, they could be better -- and it's a huge credit to the staff and players if they are. But if they just have average development, and the freshmen do what freshmen do on average, this team isn't going to be better. Pluses: - Retained more of our minutes than most teams
- Senior backcourt
- Top 25 incoming class if not a Top 5 class
Minuses: - Lost only rebounder of note
- Lost only big man who could stay on the floor
- Lost team's primary playmaker
- No real frontcourt backup last year; now we're at no returning person who has shown they can pick up the frontcourt slack at all
- A roster that screams to play really, really, small and a coach who has a tendency to do so anyway
- A team returning most players who need to improve on defense but couldn't do so with a mobile 6'11" last year.
We can come up with a lot of ways to improve the team, and maybe they will. But the average group of players here, improving about what a college team does ... it's going to be worse. When you have to say things like "Conveniently, the only player leaving was the cause of our defensive woes because while he seemed like he was very coachable and a total team player, his lack of apathy of defense was so damning that it subconsciously drove everyone else to not try. Now that he's gone, we've got a team of Alvin Robertsons and Dikembe Mutombos..." ...You know you're stretching for reasons why we're better. Let's hope Lubick is ready enough.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jun 8, 2010 15:03:20 GMT -5
I agree with what you're saying SF. The thing is I think we can get better results than last year even if the team isn't "better" I mean all in all we did pretty bad last year despite it not feeling like it subjectively. All we have to show for last year is an 8th place finish and a first round exit from the NCAAs. We can easily do better than that even if the team isn't as good as last years. We could also be worse or the same. I don't think it's crazy to think we could be better than last year. I think it's crazy to say we will be definitively better than last year or that we'll be better because of a loss of greg. But I do think we can be a better team and achieve better results in spite of greg's absence.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 8, 2010 15:17:02 GMT -5
Last year was uneven, and you're picking the worst possible spin.
We did finish 8th in the BE, but with the toughest schedule. We did lose in the first round.
Of course, none of that jives with a 2 seed, BET finalist and computer rankings in the 10-20 range.
We were a Top 20 team last year which was inconsistent, played in a really tough conference and ran up against a team that couldn't miss in the NCAA tournament.
Were we great? No, not at all. But let's not paint the team as mediocre by a couple of carefully selected results. It wasn't.
Maybe you think we'll be better relative to me because we have entirely different views of last year.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jun 8, 2010 15:41:15 GMT -5
I think we were one of the best teams in the nation last year. I just don't think we played like it enough of the time. Our results was mediocre. I don't think our team was mediocre, but what we achieved was. Yeah we got a high seed and I think we were good enough for a 3 seed. If we had finished higher in the big east and fell flat in the tournament I'd be less disappointed with last year. But the fact that we stumbled to an 8th place finish with as much talent as we had is what upsets me the most. If you took out the month of February it was a pretty satisfying season but those losses to south florida, rutgers, and ND that dropped us from a tie for second where we should've been to 8th place ruined the season for me. We made up for it with our BET, but canceled that back out with our early exit.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jun 8, 2010 16:02:13 GMT -5
he's not saying you're crazy if you think we'll be better next year than we were this year. He's saying you're crazy if you think we'll be better next year with out greg than we would be with greg. I misinterpreted his post, taking it to mean since we had Greg last year we can't be better this year. I was hoping this was more of what he meant, but you can never be too sure. And at the end of the day, all that matters is results. So if we finish sixth in the Big East next year, make the second round of the tourney, then yes we will be better than we were this past year. No matter how well we fair in the eye test. Who cares if we aren't as good of a team as last year as long as we do better and win more games than last year?
|
|