A Summary of the Theories

[robbyt]

Seems like there are a few theories going around. Having said that, if are a Georgetown player and are reading this, stop reading you shouldn't be reading this crap. You know more than us. Basically the theories boil down to:

a) Princeton O has been figured out in the Big East.

b) Princeton O doesn't work against more athletic styles in the Big East.

c) Type of players we recruit are not as talented/athletic as other Big East teams.

d) Players are just not hustling, working hard.

e) Freeman is off, when he gets back to normal we will be better.

f) JTIII is coddling players, allowing them to get away with doing dumb stuff like idle on the perimeter, barrel into the lane, play cruddy D, etc.

g) key players on the team don't mesh with the Princeton O as, for example, Wallace and Green did

h) addendum not in original post - the Gtown "equal opportunity" offense doesn't run plays for / put the ball in the hands of the best players

Are there others? Of these, I'd say

a) is probably true to a good extent. While "on paper" Princeton should be able to adapt to anything with the "options B, C, and D" that III is talking about, in reality it often doesn't with a team of college guys and when it doesn't you're screwed because Princeton doesn't seem to have room for busted plays and freewheeling.

There is a popular basic basketball coaching video at the public library, some college coach from the middle of nowhere. His statement is true, that when he teaches an offense, he tells his guys that the offense is only there to help them; he stresses that if something is not working, *just play*. For us, when "on paper" doesn't materialize, the machine breaks down too often. We've seen it for years now. There's gotta be a realization that in bball plays constantly break down, it's a game of improvisation like jazz. Have to be less perfectionistic just f'in play ball.

b) shouldn't be the case
c) tough case to make, and probably isn't the real problem
d) that ain't it so much as f
e) probably true
f) seems to me to be a big point, that guys are allowed to do things that are clearly wrong. Freeman idling at the perimeter, Wright barreling into the lane. There have to be clear lines as to what is tolerated and what is not, i.e. you do X over and over you sit. The "soft" perception doesn't apply so much to the players as to the way the players are treated IMO. You can't always treat guys (including NBA guys) like they are totally rational beings like computers who just listen and then change their output, you gotta lay down the law with real consequences when guys aren't getting it. A la Huggins knucklehead comment, though I don't think we have knuckleheads.

g) maybe true, but you gotta be able to work with who you have over 4 years. If you find that you can only succeed with a certain type of player, then you gotta learn quick not to recruit other types of players. IMO Starks and Lubick and Thompson and Clark are undoubtedly a good fit for Princeton.

h) hard to deny. Commentators on national television remarked at how Gtown was not getting Monroe the ball. We hardly ever run plays for anybody, even when Freeman is clearly going to be doubled or tripled and need a screen. We have Freeman disappear for long stretches without getting opportunities. Of course nobody wants to relive it, but Green hardly took a shot early in the Final Four game.

So overall IMO its A and F mostly with a little bit of G and H. I think we have good players who work hard.

[FrazierFanatic]

So in summary your theory is - the coach gets all of the blame and the players none.

[SFHoya99]

Jan 13, 2011 16:35:22 GMT -5 FrazierFanatic said:

So in summary your theory is - the coach gets all of the blame and the players none.

Yeah, this is where I differ with most people. If you've ever managed/coached, this should be apparent.

A coach can help motivate. A coach can pull some levers. But it's a help, it's nothing compared to self-motivation.

Now I do think there is some (f) going on. Does III harp on the details enough? I suspect no. Our team is in awful defensive stances all the time. We make repeated mistakes. We may lazy plays.

But how can you dismiss (d)? How is the fact that Jason Clark makes 2-3 lazy passes a game more III's fault than Jason's? These aren't six year olds. It's lack of execution of basic fundamentals.

Does the coaching staff bear some responsibility? Of course. They set the priorities, the level of standards demanded, set the playing time and they recruit the players.

But just as Roy Hibbert deserves most of the credit for his improvement with an assist from the staff, the same is true of the development or lack thereof. Can the staff help or hinder?

[FrazierFanatic]

Depends on your agenda SF.

[robbyt]

Jan 13, 2011 16:35:22 GMT -5 FrazierFanatic said:

So in summary your theory is - the coach gets all of the blame and the players none.

Basically, I refrain from blaming the players until the coach fixes/stops allowing obvious junk ball.

For example, it seems like these lazy perimeter passes have been made every year by about 5 guys over the past four years. Other teams don't do this crud, and its a glaring problem that needs fixing. This makes me say its not primarily on Clark or Freeman or DaJuan or any of the other guys we've seen do it. It's a team habit. How did it get there? Goes back to the coach.

There should by now have been a "lazy perimeter pass" flier put in every guy's mailbox with a 90-minute montage DVD of lazy perimeter passes spanning the JTIII era. A clear, identifiable, fixable problem that spans years.

[Madgesdiq]

Jan 13, 2011 16:47:19 GMT -5 robbyt said:

Jan 13, 2011 16:35:22 GMT -5 FrazierFanatic said:

So in summary your theory is - the coach gets all of the blame and the players none.

Basically, I refrain from blaming the players until the coach fixes/stops allowing obvious junk ball.

For example, it seems like these lazy perimeter passes have been made every year by about 5 guys over the past four years. Other teams don't do this crud, and its a glaring problem that needs fixing. This makes me say its not primarily on Clark or Freeman or DaJuan or any of the other guys we've seen do it. It's a team habit. How did it get there? Goes back to the coach.

No wonder your overseas high school basketball teams were recently featured on the 2010 edition of "Top Keyboard Commando Coaches." Congrats!

[FrazierFanatic]

Jan 13, 2011 16:47:19 GMT -5 robbyt said:

Jan 13, 2011 16:35:22 GMT -5 FrazierFanatic said:

So in summary your theory is - the coach gets all of the blame and the players none.

Basically, I refrain from blaming the players until the coach fixes/stops allowing obvious junk ball.

For example, it seems like these lazy perimeter passes have been made every year by about 5 guys over the past four years. Other teams don't do this crud, and its a glaring problem that needs fixing. This makes me say its not primarily on Clark or Freeman or DaJuan or any of the other guys we've seen do it. It's a team habit. How did it get there? Goes back to the coach.

Have you ever watched Syracuse play? They make 5 or 6 lazy/silly passes every game. Is that Boeheim's fault? It has been that way for years.

[robbyt]

Yeah I have watched Syracuse play. True they may make some bad passes, but I doubt they add up to the number that we see. And more importantly, their bad passes seem to come out of trying to do too much rather than a tentative, stifled offensive breakdown like we see time and time again.

[FrazierFanatic]

Jan 13, 2011 17:01:25 GMT -5 robbyt said:

Yeah I have watched Syracuse play. True they may make some bad passes, but I doubt they add up to the number that we see. And more importantly, their bad passes seem to come out of trying to do too much rather than a tentative, stifled offensive breakdown like we see time and time again.

Actually most of their lazy or silly passes come exactly when their offense breaks down and they freeze up trying to figure out what to do. You can't blame the coach for every mistake the players make by claiming the coach should have taught them not to do that. The biggest problem we have this year is a combination of the absence of a big guy who has multiple skills and can make a defense overcommit, and the fact taht we have lost confidence and are forcing shots or trying to do too much to compensate for the shooting. And last night unfortunately showed what happens when you try to send a lesson by making wholesale substitutions.

[bmartin]

Since lazy passes are not part of the Princeton offense, maybe they are what happens when the players "just play."

We don't have low post scorers and we don't have great ball handlers or passers who create easy shots for themselves or their teammates. Whatever offense they ran this group of players would live or die by their jump shots.

[hifigator]

just my take on this:

a: I don't think that's true at all. The Princeton O is just like most other offenses, in that it is predicated on execution. If you do it right, then you are attempting to dictate the particular pace and ideally ultimate matchup that you want -- hopefully an uncontested layup. Regardless, I don't think there's any reason to think that all of a sudden this particular offense doesn't work, even if done right.

b: actually, the Princeton O is generally regarded as an equalizer against a more physically gifted opponent Similar to the double wing in football, or even the wishbone option attack, precise execution can help minimize and/or offset differences in athletic ability

c: I can tell you that this argument is rampant anywhere when things don't go right and especially when you see a rival excel with the "marquee" players. How valid a criticism of JTIII in particular is another issue, but I would think that the real "problem" is more a matter of having to recruit the same players everyone else wants, but also having to worry about making sure they can handle the scholastic demands of a school like GU

d: I have to admit that I have seen a little bit of what looks like taking a play off here and there. I didn't notice it much last night, but I have noticed a handful of possessions where it looked like the guys were just kind of standing around catching their breath waiting for someone else to make a play, rather than playing as a team and running a set play.

e: The boys are definitely a much better team when Austin is on, but what team isn't a better team when their best players are on?

f: I'm obviously a little more out of touch from the off the court workings, so I will defer to the rest of you here. I do think that in the past couple of years, the fundamentals aren't as strong as they were with the likes of Green, Hibbert, Wallace etc.... Is that the coach or the players? I do think you might have a decent point here, in that if it's one player, then it's likely the player, but if it's 6 or 8 players over a couple of years, then maybe the coach isn't as dedicated to focus and execution as he should be

g: That's easy to say after the fact, but what specifically do you think makes Freeman, Wright, Clark etc... less compatible with the offense? I'm not arguing your point, but just asking for a bit more.

[robbyt]

Jan 13, 2011 17:15:55 GMT -5 bmartin said:

Since lazy passes are not part of the Princeton offense, maybe they are what happens when the players "just play."

We don't have low post scorers and we don't have great ball handlers or passers who create easy shots for themselves or their teammates. Whatever offense they ran this group of players would live or die by their jump shots.

In my experience when people just play they think one thing: score. Lazy passes, to me, come when the mindset is to run something rather than to attack. The coach has to make sure guys are in attack mode as they are running stuff, and simplify it if they aren't. I believe that is why Duke changed its offense, to make the players be able to be in attack mode at all times and to have to stop to think as little as possible. (This is where somebody chimes in with 'So why don't you become a Duke fan.') I'd like to see III say once "we trust that we can score" instead of "we trust our stuff".

I think we have the ability to get guys open. As in h (added after the original post) above we underuse Freeman's range of abilities by not setting him enough iso screens, and Freeman and Wright or Freeman and anybody should be running a pick and roll all day, which I've never seen once. Can't believe there's a guard who Freeman couldn't hold off the ball with his body on a pick and roll. Instead he's growing roots at the 3pt line.

[bmartin]

There is nothing special about Duke's offense except they have better players than almost every opponent. They don't win on strategy or system. They shoot threes until they eventually make a flurry of them to open up a lead and then their opponents panic and play stupid.

[jerseyhoya34]

BM - I think with Duke that it is very hard to make them beat themselves. That's really the frustrating thing. Say what we might about them, their players, officiating, their history, etc., it is rare that you can force them to play stupid.

They may not have a system per se, but what they do is so disciplined that you have to appreciate it. On paper, they had no business winning it all last year - that they did should send a signal to the basketball world, AAU junkies, and the like. It is the latter group that is very easy to force into stupidity.

My $.02.

[chep3]

Jan 13, 2011 17:29:36 GMT -5 robbyt said:

I think we have the ability to get guys open. As in h (added after the original post) above we underuse Freeman's range of abilities by not setting him enough iso screens, and Freeman and Wright or Freeman and anybody should be running a pick and roll all day, which I've never seen once. Can't believe there's a guard who Freeman couldn't hold off the ball with his body on a pick and roll. Instead he's growing roots at the 3pt line.

Not sure I agree with this. First off, Austin hasn't shown that he can be a guy who hits shots coming off screens (like say a Ray Allen or Rip Hamilton in the NBA). He's a catch and shoot guy. So, we'd have to be setting screens for Austin to drive. Which leads to my second point which is, right now, Austin seems to be going at 2/3 or 3/4 speed. I'm not sure if it's a confidence or sickness thing, but he looks like he's running in mud out there compared to his normal self. I'm not sure he's going to be beating people off the dribble that easily. For example, look how much McGhee showed on screens yesterday, and we got no buckets out of that. Now, in all fairness, that's probably due both to Austin (or others) not turning the corner quickly enough and to our bigs not rolling hard enough to the basket. And third, I don't see why/how we could run an Austin-Chris pick and roll. The size of the players just aren't that different. It'd be an easy switch every time and we get no matchup advantage out of it. Pick and rolls, as is my understanding, only really work well when the other team switches into a mismatch or is so worried about the switch that you can get a guy rolling to the bucket. That only happens when there is a difference in size between the players (like Stockton-Malone, Nash-Stoudemire, Rose-Noah, or even James-Arroyo this year).

[SFHoya99]

Duke's strength has always been to me that they have highly skilled players who play harder than everyone else. What K is best at is not scheme; it's motivation. Or it's picking really motivated guys.

They are always working, always in good position, etc. They don't always win, but effort never seems to be a question.

[bronxhoya87]

Our kids dont always play hard. That falls on the coach.

Please contact the admin. I think we need to talk.--Admin

[Boz]

Oooooooooooooooooohhhh!

[bronxhoya87]

Obviously getting banned for the last few days....and having post pulled means Ole Bronxie is on his way out.........Oh well it has been real. Bronxie will not speak with any mod with an agenda. Bronxie's opinion is valid even if it is not filled with sunshine.

To the Mod who requested a talk with Bronxie......please DIAF!!!

[strummer8526]

Jan 13, 2011 20:13:40 GMT -5 bronxhoya87 said:

Obviously getting banned for the last few days....and having post pulled means Ole Bronxie is on his way out.........Oh well it has been real. Bronxie will not speak with any mod with an agenda. Bronxie's opinion is valid even if it is not filled with sunshine.

To the Mod who requested a talk with Bronxie......please DIAF!!!

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=D.I.A.F.

Nice knowin' ya, Bronxie. Something tells me you're gone.