|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 3, 2010 16:40:54 GMT -5
I really like Monroe, and this question is a tough one, but I tend to think that as crazy as it seems, the team may be better off without him, mainly because I feel the team is better focusing the offense on the guards and NOT running the offense through a big man.
Having said that, there is no question that the team would have had a better upside with Monroe, had everyone gone well with him and everyone else improving and really playing together. My guess, however, is that this particular team might be better without him. Also, it is great for this team's chemistry that guys like Sanford, Benimon, and of course, Sims get time. There would be a lot less minutes for those guys with Monroe around.
|
|
gujake
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 831
|
Post by gujake on Dec 3, 2010 16:45:52 GMT -5
I will say that I think some of Greg's rebounding and defense numbers are somewhat misleading... I don't think he was nearly as good at those things as some of the numbers might indicate.
That said, I think it's doubtful that we are better without him.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Dec 3, 2010 17:55:12 GMT -5
I agree with Nevada's sentiments. The maddening/exhilarating thing about this team last year was the sense that they could let their opponent run up the score however much and when crunch time happened, they would rally for the win. Without the crutch of Greg's presence, it's like the guys realize they have to focus more, play as a team more, and give their 100% the entire game. I think the current team has been intentionally compensating for the loss of its best player and that that doesn't reflect badly upon Greg in the least.
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,762
|
Post by blueandgray on Dec 3, 2010 18:26:59 GMT -5
Tough question to answer because with Greg last year, we knew we could beat anyone on any given night. By contrast, we could also lose to anyone and we did. That said, as of now, we are playing better ball this year without greg than we did a year ago with him. A big reason for this imo is that there isn't a question of who's "the man". anyone of four or five guys has the green light to take the game winning shot as evidenced by the mizzou game and its perfectly all right. Two years ago, Dajuan and sometimes Jessie felt like they were entitled to take the big shot. Last year, to a lesser degree it was Greg, but as a whole, the team felt responsible for getting him the ball. This resulted in our guards passing the ball back looking to dump it in the post ....so much so that defenders were jumping passing lanes leading to uncontested breakaways. It happened almost every game. Now, it doesn't matter who has the ball or who get's theirs as long as we win. Chris has become the selfless leader we have always wanted (scoring is down a bit but so are turnovers and his assists are off the charts). Austin is the quiet assasin. He didn't attempt his first FG in the Missou until the 11 minute mark of the 1st half and it didn't seem to matter....he still ended up with 31. Clark is arguably one of the 10 best guards in the country and is happy being a 3rd option....how many teams can say that? Not to mention the development of other players like Henry, Lubick and Jerrelle who are getting more minutes as a result of greg's absence. Team chemistry is simply better without Greg (not necessarily because who greg was, but for what he represented) and when running an offense like ours chemistry is the single most important thing....more important than any single player. Let's face it, Greg changes the dynamic of this team and how we run things.
|
|
lurkerhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by lurkerhoya on Dec 3, 2010 18:30:57 GMT -5
Greg had a tendency to disappear in crunch time. That's not nearly as much of a knock on him as it sounds. It's just the nature of having your best player be a 4/5 who doesn't control the ball at the start of a possession. Our best players now are all ball handlers and I think that's huge. Do we win the Mizzou game with Greg in there? Not sure, and I'm not just thinking about CW's three, but also Austin's 5-point run to get the game to 85-all where he simply poured it in, starting the possession with the ball from outside the arc.
I'm of the opinion that to be a great team that will win close games down the stretch, you need your ball handler to have the ability to be the best player on the floor. With Greg, I don't think we ever had that. Which isn't to say that it couldn't have been that way this year, where Greg could have been a secondary player down the stretch giving way to any one of the Big 3.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 3, 2010 18:38:58 GMT -5
Greg had a tendency to disappear in crunch time. That's not nearly as much of a knock on him as it sounds. It's just the nature of having your best player be a 4/5 who doesn't control the ball at the start of a possession. Our best players now are all ball handlers and I think that's huge. Do we win the Mizzou game with Greg in there? Not sure, and I'm not just thinking about CW's three, but also Austin's 5-point run to get the game to 85-all where he simply poured it in, starting the possession with the ball from outside the arc. I'm of the opinion that to be a great team that will win close games down the stretch, you need your ball handler to have the ability to be the best player on the floor. With Greg, I don't think we ever had that. Which isn't to say that it couldn't have been that way this year, where Greg could have been a secondary player down the stretch giving way to any one of the Big 3. Except that Greg was a secondary player down the stretch in numerous games last year. Austin took the last shot against Marquette, Chris and Austin were instrumental in the comeback against 'Cuse, etc. I'm really not sure how adding another quality big, especially one who would be our best defensive rebounder and post defender, would be a bad thing, but I guess we want to tear down Greg as a player just as we tore down Roy when the Hoyas started out really well in 2008-2009
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 3, 2010 18:56:57 GMT -5
The GM of the best franchise in NBA his story agrees with Bronxie. You and your hero worship of young men matter little. If you do not think Greg is soft then you probably do not think water is wet. If you can't even spell history, if you refer to yourself in the third person with stupid nicknames, and if you compensate for the small size of you manhood by vaguely name dropping, your opinion of others doesn't carry much weight.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,358
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 3, 2010 18:57:52 GMT -5
We started out the season wondering who would man the 4, and the 5 if Julian got into foul trouble. With Greg, we had the answer to our pre-season FC questions. A year of development together for the group that killed Duke and Butler would have us knocking at our second National Championship.
Greg was a team player. Any talk of him demanding the ball in crunch time if he had stayed or his presence disrupting team chemistry is crazy talk.
Finally, remember watching that UNC-A game where Sims was runnning the offense, getting the ball up high and making the backdoor/outlet passes? That would have been Greg, the best passing big man in college basketball.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Dec 3, 2010 18:59:23 GMT -5
Greg had a tendency to disappear in crunch time. That's not nearly as much of a knock on him as it sounds. It's just the nature of having your best player be a 4/5 who doesn't control the ball at the start of a possession. Our best players now are all ball handlers and I think that's huge. Do we win the Mizzou game with Greg in there? Not sure, and I'm not just thinking about CW's three, but also Austin's 5-point run to get the game to 85-all where he simply poured it in, starting the possession with the ball from outside the arc. I'm of the opinion that to be a great team that will win close games down the stretch, you need your ball handler to have the ability to be the best player on the floor. With Greg, I don't think we ever had that. Which isn't to say that it couldn't have been that way this year, where Greg could have been a secondary player down the stretch giving way to any one of the Big 3. Except that Greg was a secondary player down the stretch in numerous games last year. Austin took the last shot against Marquette, Chris and Austin were instrumental in the comeback against 'Cuse, etc. I'm really not sure how adding another quality big, especially one who would be our best defensive rebounder and post defender, would be a bad thing, but I guess we want to tear down Greg as a player just as we tore down Roy when the Hoyas started out really well in 2008-2009 Exactly. I hope none of the folks slighting Greg are the same ones who were sensitive when I was critical of Jesse Sapp. Of course I made my comment in the recruiting forum in a thread that did not bare Jesse's name (a mod decided to remove that discussion from that thread and create a whole new thread for it which was listed under Jesse's name). Some of you don't seem to have any problems taking shots at Greg in a thread in the MAIN forum under his name. We were freakin' lucky to have Greg as a Hoya at all, let alone for two seasons. That team last season doesn't win nearly the amount of games last season if it were not for Greg. Is this team better without Greg? Once again, no. But the team is better because of all the experience we brought back on the perimeter. Some of you are suggesting that with Greg the backcourt players were held back but what you appear to be saying is that you had no idea how good the returning players were. It catches you by surprise that all but one of our players, with another year under their belts, returned from a successful (overall) campaign of last season and the team is improved. Geez, four of the five starters came back including the leading scorer/ go-to guy and the point guard. How else did you expect them to play? And what's with the nonsense that Greg has to play a secondary role and let the other guys shine? Is there such a thing as a secondary role in III's offense when the person with the best look is supposed to take a shot regardless of who that player is? Greg didn't hold anyone back. Like Roy and Jeff he never dominated the ball, never took a high number of shot attempts. On the contrary Greg was unselfish, perhaps too much so. He found his teammates all the time for good looks and easy baskets. He would have continued to have progressed going into junior season after showing much improvement as a soph (no sophomore player under III ever put up such good numbers). Ad the Hoyas' chances of winning it all would have been greater. accusing Greg of passivity is funny considering every guy under III has at one time or another been criticized for not being aggressive enough.
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,762
|
Post by blueandgray on Dec 3, 2010 19:16:24 GMT -5
Agree with you mci....it's not about Greg and we were lucky to have him. That said, the problem lies in the fact that we let the air out of the ball every time we tried to get the ball to Greg. This year, that's a none issue as we simply play to our strength.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 3, 2010 19:37:09 GMT -5
How many of you criticizing Greg were the same ones who were pleading last year "get the ball into Greg"?
|
|
richfame
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by richfame on Dec 3, 2010 22:16:00 GMT -5
I appreciate the feed back and the good debate regarding the questions I posed.
To answer my own question Greg should have stayed. This year is the culmination of a few very good recruiting classes. Greg knew this team had a chance to put it all together and be a national contender. Had Greg stayed and made a deep run in the tournament he would have been better off in draft postiion and skill level. Lets face it last year could not of had a worse finish, trust me I was there.
I do however agree with the posters that his departure has opened the way for Henry Sims to get his minutes and show what he can do. Also, our team has become more guard orientated without him and that is how you win games in 2010.
All this being said I hope Greg works hard and becomes an impact player in the league for years to come.
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Dec 4, 2010 2:09:53 GMT -5
Gotta agree with MCI. People need to take a step back and understand how good Greg was. First off, last year Greg was an extremely good player. He was a great scorer for us, our best rebounder, and a phenomenal facilitator of our offense. But even given that, he didn't lead us in scoring, Austin did (I really hope I'm not incorrect about that). Everyone seems to be juxtaposing this guard based free high scoring offense and this plodding offense with Greg. But last time I checked, Chris scored 34 against Harvard with Greg, Austin scored 33 against UConn with Greg, etc. etc. Those guys (and Jason) are better this year because they're a year older with more time to work on their game and a better understanding of what to do when they're on the floor. That has NOTHING to do with Greg.
If you added Greg to this team, you'd be adding to one of the best back courts in the country, quite possibly the best big man in the country. We'd be looking dump the ball into a guy who not only could score against pretty much anyone, but also a guy who was adept (not just capable) at finding guys who had better looks than he had. We'd play to our strengths no matter what when we got him the ball because he could either score or find someone with a better look. He ripped apart zones and with the way we shoot the ball this year, getting the rock to Greg at the free throw line would have shredded a zone in a way that would have been borderline unfair. This whole "discussion" is not a discussion...I wholeheartedly believe that anyone who thinks we are better without Greg is insane.
The one thing I do agree with is rich's statement that Henry is better of without Greg. Henry needed/needs minutes to develop and those would have been fewer and farther between with Greg out there. But as much as I love the way Henry is playing right now (and in theory even with Greg, his development could have still stolen minutes from Julian as it did in the Mizzou game), we'd be better off with Greg at those minutes.
|
|
|
Post by bigelephant on Dec 4, 2010 8:53:48 GMT -5
Greg is yesterdays news - he could do amazing things but not all things he did were amazing. We will see at the end of the year whether we were better off without him this year. We are playing a faster tempo which I'm not sure would suit Greg (or Hibbert for that matter) - but the proof will be in the results are the end. I'm not knocking Greg - he WAS great for us.
|
|
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 Dec 4, 2010 9:42:38 GMT -5
As a fan of Georgetown basketball, I selfishly wish Greg had stayed. To say that we are better off without one of the top post players in the nation is, IMO, far fetched, as MCI and others have so eloquently stated. I believe Greg made the proper decision because of his skill level(no. 7 overall pick), the uncertain labor situation in the NBA going into next year(the CBA expires in June of next year), and the time value of money.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Dec 4, 2010 9:52:00 GMT -5
Gotta agree with MCI. People need to take a step back and understand how good Greg was. First off, last year Greg was an extremely good player. He was a great scorer for us, our best rebounder, and a phenomenal facilitator of our offense. But even given that, he didn't lead us in scoring, Austin did (I really hope I'm not incorrect about that). Everyone seems to be juxtaposing this guard based free high scoring offense and this plodding offense with Greg. But last time I checked, Chris scored 34 against Harvard with Greg, Austin scored 33 against UConn with Greg, etc. etc. Those guys (and Jason) are better this year because they're a year older with more time to work on their game and a better understanding of what to do when they're on the floor. That has NOTHING to do with Greg. If you added Greg to this team, you'd be adding to one of the best back courts in the country, quite possibly the best big man in the country. We'd be looking dump the ball into a guy who not only could score against pretty much anyone, but also a guy who was adept (not just capable) at finding guys who had better looks than he had. We'd play to our strengths no matter what when we got him the ball because he could either score or find someone with a better look. He ripped apart zones and with the way we shoot the ball this year, getting the rock to Greg at the free throw line would have shredded a zone in a way that would have been borderline unfair. This whole "discussion" is not a discussion...I wholeheartedly believe that anyone who thinks we are better without Greg is insane. The one thing I do agree with is rich's statement that Henry is better of without Greg. Henry needed/needs minutes to develop and those would have been fewer and farther between with Greg out there. But as much as I love the way Henry is playing right now (and in theory even with Greg, his development could have still stolen minutes from Julian as it did in the Mizzou game), we'd be better off with Greg at those minutes. Completely agree with this.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,362
|
Post by calhoya on Dec 4, 2010 9:55:15 GMT -5
Hard to read this type of discussion without screaming in frustration. Greg was a very good player who left after two years to capitalize on an opportunity presented by his talents and hard work. Greatest center who ever played at Georgetown? Clearly not. Would the team have been better off with him this year? Ridiculous question and the obvious answer is that this year's team with Greg would be one of the odds on favorites to win it all and potentially one of the best teams in Hoya history. As someone who roots hard for Henry Sims, I can say that Greg's presence this year would have probably hindered Henry's growth, but it would have clearly been worth it for the results. Imagine the scoring options that others would have to defend. Imagine the ball movement with an incredibly skilled passer at the 4 position. I know that people like to speculate about these things and I have no problem with that. Let's just remember that just as Austin, Jason and Chris have improved and toughened as they matured, a 21 yeaer old Monroe would have done so as well.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Dec 4, 2010 10:24:04 GMT -5
The GM of the best franchise in NBA his story agrees with Bronxie. You are personal friends with Danny Ainge? Sweet - how's your golf game?
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,487
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyaboya on Dec 4, 2010 10:53:25 GMT -5
As a fan of Georgetown basketball, I selfishly wish Greg had stayed. To say that we are better off without one of the top post players in the nation is, IMO, far fetched, as MCI and others have so eloquently stated. I believe Greg made the proper decision because of his skill level(no. 7 overall pick), the uncertain labor situation in the NBA going into next year(the CBA expires in June of next year), and the time value of money. 100% in agreement with this post.
|
|
|
Post by hobokenhoya on Dec 4, 2010 11:18:56 GMT -5
Bronxie, this whole referring to yourself in the third person is making me sick.
|
|