jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Aug 4, 2010 22:48:45 GMT -5
Over time a system like JTIII's comes out on top. But its because at its most basic level his offense forces players to be fundamentally strong. Other systems rely on gimmicks to hide the weaknesses of the players (in my opinion Calipari uses speed to mask the poor defense or shooting of some of his players- not all, many were very good, but some). Is it a detriment that those systems "hide the weaknesses of players"? Isn't that just another way of saying that they maximize their advantages? I suppose you could characterize it that way. And in many ways what i am saying is hypocritical because the Princeton Offense was designed to hide the face that the Princeton players were not as big or quick as the teams they were playing. I guess what I like about what I perceive as JTIII's coaching is that it focuses primarily on fundamentals and being a good all around player. While I perceive a system like Cal's as just running and driving and dishing so that traditional fundamental skills are not as tested- i.e. you take players one on one so that the teams passing and off ball skills arent tested. Now i could be completely wrong about this as i gave up basketball when i realized i could hardly make a lay up, but that is how i perceive it. But i dont think over the past five seasons this has been true or national champions. None of the past five have been lead by Freshman sensations. They have had cores of juniors and seniors with highly skilled sophs and freshman as role players. The teams lead by the top freshman havent gotten there (oden is the exception here). Most teams lead by freshman have won lots of games in the regular season but been let downs in the Tournament. Of course they have all been more successful than gtown over this same period so it would be difficult for me to support my point in that way. But i dont think that has been the systems fault; rather a failure of the palyers in the system to execute (mostly on the defensive end). When they did execute on the defensive and offensive ends they succeeded (see the FF year). In the end systems are only as good as the players in them choose to be. Any system can win as long as the players commit and then work their butts off to win.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Aug 5, 2010 10:21:20 GMT -5
"If you have a fast team and you don’t run, you’re being stupid. And if you have a slow team, you must take the run out of the game."
"Wherever fast players go, they always get there faster than slower players."
A couple of Pete Carril quotes, and I'm sure JTIII knows them very well.
I have to say, I also like this one a lot:
"The ability to rebound is in inverse proportion to the distance your house is from the nearest railroad tracks."
I may not totally agree with it, but I do understand the "attitude" he means.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Aug 6, 2010 14:18:58 GMT -5
Rakeem obviously hates the Princeton Offense.
|
|
|
Post by JGM0509 on Aug 6, 2010 14:43:08 GMT -5
Definitely agree with Harwoodhoya, we need to get the bigs touches on the blocks. Henry Sims with the ball in his hands outside of the three point line gives me nightmares
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,357
Member is Online
|
Post by calhoya on Aug 9, 2010 7:36:56 GMT -5
Count me as one who is not enamored with the so-called Princeton-offense. Yet it's time to give the coach some credit for the significant modifications that have been made to that offense to allow the kids to run more when the opportunity presents itself. Problem last year was the short bench and the fact that the team could not afford to maintain a quick up and down game for very long. Include the bench and use the number of guards we now have and there is no reason that this team cannot play "fast" much more often this year. Also, the increased bench should allow for a much more aggresssive defense, particularly if the posts turn out to be good defenders.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Aug 9, 2010 11:22:14 GMT -5
our offense is fine. the Princeton offense is fine. we can score with anybody in the country. we have proven that.
if we go to an uptempo type team is not the issue.
the defense and rebounding are the issues.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Aug 9, 2010 11:25:40 GMT -5
our offense is fine. the Princeton offense is fine. we can score with anybody in the country. we have proven that. if we go to an uptempo type team is not the issue. the defense and rebounding are the issues. It really is such a joke how skewed perception of the offense is. We put up 100+ on nova, 89 on duke...yeah our offensive possessions may be far down the list but if you are efficient with those possessions you can still score a lot of points. in the last two years, d and rebs have held us back, not anything to do with the offense. i don't think this is revisionist but for chrissakes recruits, watch some game clips and decide for yourself rather than listening to whispers of that db BoHeem
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Post by skyhoya on Aug 9, 2010 12:15:14 GMT -5
As long as we run a Princeton type offense, we are at least three years from another final four appearance. There is no one the size of Hibbert on the team as of this season. For III to make a deep run he needs that big center in the middle to make the Princeton viable and to have a large defensive presence. . Pops had it when he went deep and III had it when her took the team to Atlanta.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,768
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 9, 2010 12:23:51 GMT -5
As long as we run a Princeton type offense, we are at least three years from another final four appearance. There is no one the size of Hibbert on the team as of this season. For III to make a deep run he needs that big center in the middle to make the Princeton viable and to have a large defensive presence. . Pops had it when he went deep and III had it when her took the team to Atlanta. Huh? A big center is not a prereq but it is a huge help in having a great defense. But it's absolutely not a requirement for an effective Princeton offense and in fact, it's kind of the opposite. Yes, every team pretty much does better with size, but our lack of size doesn't hurt us more because of the offense we run. You can argue we won't go to the Final Four without a strong frontline -- virtually no one ever does -- but it has nothing to do with the size of the frontline in reference to the offense.
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Post by skyhoya on Aug 9, 2010 12:41:56 GMT -5
Totally dis-agree. You can win with the Princeton, but can't run through the field without a true big man.
|
|
tjm62
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 855
|
Post by tjm62 on Aug 9, 2010 13:03:07 GMT -5
Here's a novel idea:
How about JTIII announce that he’s scrapping the Princeton Offense and will be trying a modified offensive schema this coming year.
REALTY: We keep our offense.
FACT: JTIII already runs a heavily modified princeton offense that takes advantage of the improved athleticism of Georgetown recruits.
FACT: There is little evidence that our offensive scheme stifles our offense. Anyone see the Duke game? How about the 100 we dropped on Villanova? How about our cushy KenPom Offensive Efficiency ratings? Last year we even saw our transition game improve.
FACT: The biggest obstacles to winning under JTIII have been defense and aggressively rebounding.
FACT: Announcers talk about the Princeton Offense because they’re lazy and want to have something to “debate” during Georgetown games. Opposing fans like to play it up to knock JTIII and help negatively recruit players from Georgetown.
In other words, I think we could make a change that might help dispel the image of our “suffocating offense” without actually giving up something that actually works pretty well.
Just saying.
|
|
tjm62
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 855
|
Post by tjm62 on Aug 9, 2010 13:05:37 GMT -5
I think it is time for JT3 to call a press conference and announce that using the Princeton Offense was a big mistake and he will not be using it ever again. In its place he will use an up-tempo motion offense, making use of all of his players' speed, passing and shooting abilities. Learning this system will greatly increase each player's value in the NBA. It will be called the JT3 offense and while it may look like the Princeton Offense it is not. Georgetown will no longer run the Princeton Offense. (Actually, I don't think we have run it for the past 2 years) On rereading, this is similar to my thought. SHAKE THINGS UP!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,768
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 9, 2010 13:17:18 GMT -5
Totally dis-agree. You can win with the Princeton, but can't run through the field without a true big man. I don't disagree with that; what I don't get is why that second phrase ("can't run through the field without a true big man") seems to be especially applicable to a team running a Princeton in your view. Few teams make the Final Four with good big men. If anything, a Princeton-style offense would help disguise the lack, though I don't think there's much chance for a team running our offense, either.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,768
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 9, 2010 13:18:44 GMT -5
tjm - Opposing fans? We have enough of our own fans knocking it where prospective recruits can "hear" it.
|
|
tjm62
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 855
|
Post by tjm62 on Aug 9, 2010 13:30:32 GMT -5
tjm - Opposing fans? We have enough of our own fans knocking it where prospective recruits can "hear" it. Then we'll fool them too.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,357
Member is Online
|
Post by calhoya on Aug 9, 2010 16:20:06 GMT -5
Clearly, JT III has modified the offense he ran last year from that he ran with Roy, Wallace and others. Last year's team could score a bunch of points quickly when it had to--except against Ohio. Agree that the announcers have grown lazy in describing the Hoya offense and often they are doing so as much to compliment the passing/backdoor element and not to criticize it as boring. Also agree that the defense could be much more aggressive. Finally on the role of the big man in basketball success, it is apparent that the what is currently in vogue are the more mobile "bigs" that are thriving in the NBA. See Gasol and Durant. Finally, the biggest deficiencies have been the lack of consistent rebounding and the failure to utilize any kind of "extended" pressure defense. The short bench and the fear of foul trouble probably dictated the style of defense as much as anything, but it would be great to see Clark, Wright, Sanford, and others extend the pressure and make a team work to get the ball up court. The key will be the play of the posts and whether they can protect the basket.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,768
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 9, 2010 16:26:16 GMT -5
Ohio was scoring 1.32 points per possession against our "defense." While our offense was merely average for us (and well ahead of most offenses), it'd be hard to ask it to score at a rate to catch up to what Ohio was doing.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Aug 9, 2010 17:01:19 GMT -5
I hate the "Georgetown Defense" we've seen the past 2 years--and that is what should be getting ripped.
I hated Princeton's offense when I was growing up-and tired of the announcers who would say "Would love to see what a team with better athletes/talent could do with it...."--and now the same talking heads rip it to shreds.
Can't win situation unless you have great players--because great players can function in any system-if you let them.
Give me some DEFENSE and I'll be happy.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Aug 9, 2010 17:55:40 GMT -5
It doesnt have to be said again, but yeah it has been all about defense. When the team was playing great (in the last two years Hibbert was there) they were playing great defense. Everyone talked about how few possessions gtwon was getting on offense but this had a lot to do with how late the defense was working teams into the shot clock (and with wallace, green and hibbert having the patience to find the best shot even if it took 30 seconds).
What ever pace one team is playing in a game is about the same pace the other team is playing, so it doesnt matter how fast you play on average, just that you execute at what ever pace you are at. Good defense is going to create a "slower" game because teams are going to have to work harder to find a shot.
|
|
robbyt
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 334
|
Post by robbyt on Aug 10, 2010 9:42:08 GMT -5
Here two of the of the most key problems with the way we play. I don't think any of it is unique to Princeton.
#1 We try to be infinitely clever with mixing up the things we do within the tempo--but we rarely if ever mix up *the tempo itself.*
We make all kinds of crafty cuts and look for unusual passing lanes etc. but it all happens at the same speed. This allows defenses to settle in. They know they will not be surprised with a drive or shot early in the shot clock so they just dig in and cut off the passing lanes. They "read" us just the same way we try to teach guys to "read and react". We are being read and reacted to too easily. It is analagous to a pitcher throwing fastballs 90% of the time. You have to run some quick-hit plays, even it means "forcing" things (if initiating means forcing), otherwise in effect you are "forcing" a monotonous tempo. By trying a little too hard not to force things in one way we are forcing things in another way i.e. forcing monotony. See Ohio St. game, among others. CW4 has done the best job of mixing it up, but we need more. It doesn't mean change the offense completely. It means asking a fastball pitcher to throw 65-70% fastballs instead of 90%, and developing a change up and a curve.
#2 We emphasize "read and react" for our players, but need to think about how to make defenses read and react to us. We tend to go into this "bubble" mentality as if we were running the offense in a laboratory and its success only depended on our execution, we have to get more of a real-action mentality where we realize that it is our job to *take it to* defenses not just to "run" something.
I can't believe that a) mixing up rhythms and b) initiating drives and getting your own shot have no place in Princeton. In essence, the problem ain't Princeton.
|
|