|
Post by wahoohoya on Apr 19, 2011 15:31:20 GMT -5
If he has to play 7, then he has to play 7. you can't just play guys to play guys. you gotta play guys that give you the best chance in winning. if JTIII had 9 guys that were Big East caliber contributors on his bench for next year, he will play them. if he has 7, he'll play 7. This is totally situational. If you are Ohio State and you have a chance to win it all with 7 (and there is a big drop off in talent between the 7th and 8th player), you play 7. If you are rebuilding and you have guys who are unproven/fringe contributors but with time could become Big East caliber contributors, you make it a priority to develop your bench and try to win as much as you can in the process. You have to find that balance.
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Apr 19, 2011 15:31:40 GMT -5
Our team with the best chance of winning it all (06), was also the least "deep" numbers-wise Yeah but we played significantly slower, as we could given the fact that we had 2 guys we could consistently go to for buckets in the half court. I'm with bronxie on this one. Our starters are not so much better than our bench guys to warrant playing 30 minutes or so. Generally, here's how I'm expecting things to break down. Markel - 30 at the pg Jason - 30 between pg and sg Jabril/Aaron - 10 at sg Hollis - 30 between sf and sg Otto - 20 between sf and pf Greg - 10 between sf and pf Nate - 30 at pf Henry - 25 at c Moses/Tyler - 15 at c Maybe if Hopkins develops, he gets 5 at the pf and someone else's minutes (Greg's, Otto's, or Nate's drops). But I'm expecting 9 guys to play next year. That's enough to keep the bench players happy, develop the young players, and still play a reasonable rotation.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Apr 19, 2011 15:41:46 GMT -5
Our team with the best chance of winning it all (06), was also the least "deep" numbers-wise Yeah but we played significantly slower, as we could given the fact that we had 2 guys we could consistently go to for buckets in the half court. I'm with bronxie on this one. Our starters are not so much better than our bench guys to warrant playing 30 minutes or so. Generally, here's how I'm expecting things to break down. Markel - 30 at the pg Jason - 30 between pg and sg Jabril/Aaron - 10 at sg Hollis - 30 between sf and sg Otto - 20 between sf and pf Greg - 10 between sf and pf Nate - 30 at pf Henry - 25 at c Moses/Tyler - 15 at c Maybe if Hopkins develops, he gets 5 at the pf and someone else's minutes (Greg's, Otto's, or Nate's drops). But I'm expecting 9 guys to play next year. That's enough to keep the bench players happy, develop the young players, and still play a reasonable rotation. I agree with most of your PT and that we will be deep, more out of necessity. But just my two cents, Tyler has the unqiue opportunity to get starter's minutes right away because he possesses a skill set no one else on the team has shown to date. So I would probably switch Tyler with Henry in the breakdown. If the reports are correct, he is a true back to the basket player, our only true back to basket player. Moses does not count since he never showed the consistent ability in HS like Tyler.
|
|
|
Post by bronxhoya87 on Apr 19, 2011 15:47:05 GMT -5
9-10 kids should play and Moses should start at center in a perfect world. If he can be a presence inside and block some shots and get a few rebounds he would be fine. We need to start trying to accentuate kid's positive and eliminate the negatives. If Icantdo can get major minutes for Yukon so can Moses for us. Everything in 2012 sets up for 2013. Grow your depth and compete hard and get a quick guard and a elite post man (Tony Parker) and 2013 could be our year.
|
|
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 Apr 19, 2011 17:26:24 GMT -5
IMO, picking minutes in April is like Lunardi picking brackets in April - it's a fun exercise (and I'm glad posters do it), but there is a good chance that it won't bear much resemblance to reality when things play themselves out.
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Apr 19, 2011 18:06:51 GMT -5
Of course. I guess I just mean I don't think anyone on this team is so much better than their backups that they deserve more than 30 minutes on the floor. This isn't like last year where you could make a case that Chris and Austin needed to be on the court 98% of the game.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Apr 19, 2011 18:20:28 GMT -5
If he has to play 7, then he has to play 7. you can't just play guys to play guys. you gotta play guys that give you the best chance in winning. if JTIII had 9 guys that were Big East caliber contributors on his bench for next year, he will play them. if he has 7, he'll play 7. This is totally situational. If you are Ohio State and you have a chance to win it all with 7 (and there is a big drop off in talent between the 7th and 8th player), you play 7. If you are rebuilding and you have guys who are unproven/fringe contributors but with time could become Big East caliber contributors, you make it a priority to develop your bench and try to win as much as you can in the process. You have to find that balance. III is developing his bench. You don't think he has tried all year, in practice? We only see the games. He sees the practices. The teaching and developing goes on in practice. Thats what happened to Nate. He earned his way into a starting lineup and never looked back. You don't just play guys because they are on scholarship and have a pulse. You compete. Thats how you win. If you have only 7 guys that can do that. That play at a certain standard, then you just play those 7 guys. And then the other 5 guys know what standard needs to be met before they can play. That is how you get better. If a guy isn't ready, putting him out on the court where he gets embarrassed and loses the little confidence he had to begin with makes it worse and sets you back further. You lose games as well. in JTII's history, he hasn't been burned by not playing a guy. He has not erred in distributing minutes for guys over the course of the season. Not one season. When a guy steps out on the court, you see why they do (or don't) get a lot of minutes. Guys who played sparingly usually transferred to lower schools or later on admitted that they were not putting forth the effort that they should have to get better. The coach can coach and develop until he is blue in the face. Ultimately, it boils down to two things: 1) there has to be some raw talent there to begin with 2) the player has to commit himself to the teaching/coaching and working on his raw talent to become a better player and earn playing time.
|
|
|
Post by gtowndynasty on Apr 19, 2011 18:57:00 GMT -5
This is totally situational. If you are Ohio State and you have a chance to win it all with 7 (and there is a big drop off in talent between the 7th and 8th player), you play 7. If you are rebuilding and you have guys who are unproven/fringe contributors but with time could become Big East caliber contributors, you make it a priority to develop your bench and try to win as much as you can in the process. You have to find that balance. III is developing his bench. You don't think he has tried all year, in practice? We only see the games. He sees the practices. The teaching and developing goes on in practice. Thats what happened to Nate. He earned his way into a starting lineup and never looked back. You don't just play guys because they are on scholarship and have a pulse. You compete. Thats how you win. If you have only 7 guys that can do that. That play at a certain standard, then you just play those 7 guys. And then the other 5 guys know what standard needs to be met before they can play. That is how you get better. If a guy isn't ready, putting him out on the court where he gets embarrassed and loses the little confidence he had to begin with makes it worse and sets you back further. You lose games as well. in JTII's history, he hasn't been burned by not playing a guy. He has not erred in distributing minutes for guys over the course of the season. Not one season. When a guy steps out on the court, you see why they do (or don't) get a lot of minutes. Guys who played sparingly usually transferred to lower schools or later on admitted that they were not putting forth the effort that they should have to get better. The coach can coach and develop until he is blue in the face. Ultimately, it boils down to two things: 1) there has to be some raw talent there to begin with 2) the player has to commit himself to the teaching/coaching and working on his raw talent to become a better player and earn playing time. Disagree with some of this. 1. You recruit guys and guys decide to come here with the expectation to play. Maybe JB doesnt fit here, but guys like Moses and Vee certainly do. Thus, you have to throw them a bone. They chose to come here over other schools so you arent doing them a favor just having them sit on the bench. Otherwise, guys will leave. Vernon and Vee will probably be the main two guys that left and we could have used. 2. Your raw talent idea...if a guy doesnt have raw talent, he wouldnt be here. All of our scholarships have "raw" talent. Otherwise, they would not be here. If they are, that is on the Coach who misidentified a player. If III wants a scholarship player to ride a bench, he may as well get an "invited walk-on" like Stepka. 3. Your last point, if a guy feels he earns time and doesnt get time, who is that on? The guy? I dont like the veil of III sees what is going in practice so he knows. Well I can see what is going on in the games and certain guys, not all, need to be made a part of the rotation so they stay in tuned and happy. We will be better long term because of it. Bottom line, we should have played 10 guys this year regularly. Jason/Austin/Chris/Henry/Julian/Hollis/Nate/Vee/Markel/Moses should have seen time. Julian and Henry should have had their minutes reduced so that Moses can be developed. I do not like Boeheim, but do not hate him as much as some on this board, but you know how he kept Melo happy and engaged...he started him. Melo played the first 3 or 4 minutes and may not play again the whole half, sometimes the whole game. And after 25 or so games like that, the guy actually became a contributor. Practice doesnt get guys ready for the prime time...games do! Practice minutes dont keep guys in your program, games do! I hope III learns from this because we have 13 guys on schollie now. Guess what-they all expect to play!
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,245
|
Post by hoyarooter on Apr 19, 2011 19:26:27 GMT -5
I think way is correct to the extent that if a couple players are clearly behind the curve in talent and development, they shouldn't play. I'm willing to accept that Moses wasn't ready to play last year - it was anticipated that he would be a project, and he was a project.
However, my expectation is that next year the gap in talent on the roster will be relatively thin (which doesn't mean that everyone is really good - it just means that hardly anyone will be so far behind the curve as to not deserve minutes). So I'm with bronx here (Lord strike me down). I think time must be found to accommodate a deeper rotation next year. I don't want to see Bowen, Trawick and Whittington rotting away on the bench. Same with Hopkins, as long as he puts in the effort.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Apr 19, 2011 19:38:06 GMT -5
hoyarooter,
you said "expectation".
that is the issue at hand.
it is the expectation that the talent-gap should be narrower.
but, how do we know this?
we don't. sure, we can all speculate....its the offseason ;D
how do we know everybody should be around the same level?
III may only have 6 guys he can use for next year or 10? we just don't know.
I'm with III on this. His track record has proven that he knows who can and can't play once he gets them on campus and sees them in practice. There really isn't a set number. The players decide that, not the coach.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Apr 19, 2011 20:05:15 GMT -5
Our team with the best chance of winning it all (06), was also the least "deep" numbers-wise Yeah but we played significantly slower, as we could given the fact that we had 2 guys we could consistently go to for buckets in the half court. I'm with bronxie on this one. Our starters are not so much better than our bench guys to warrant playing 30 minutes or so. Generally, here's how I'm expecting things to break down. Markel - 30 at the pg Jason - 30 between pg and sg Jabril/Aaron - 10 at sg Hollis - 30 between sf and sg Otto - 20 between sf and pf Greg - 10 between sf and pf Nate - 30 at pf Henry - 25 at c Moses/Tyler - 15 at c Maybe if Hopkins develops, he gets 5 at the pf and someone else's minutes (Greg's, Otto's, or Nate's drops). But I'm expecting 9 guys to play next year. That's enough to keep the bench players happy, develop the young players, and still play a reasonable rotation. Where's Benimon? Doesnt it seem like he should be up to about 20 min a game now Lets hope he becomes a threat on O during the offseason.
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Apr 19, 2011 20:38:00 GMT -5
hoyarooter, you said "expectation". that is the issue at hand. it is the expectation that the talent-gap should be narrower. but, how do we know this? we don't. sure, we can all speculate....its the offseason ;D how do we know everybody should be around the same level? III may only have 6 guys he can use for next year or 10? we just don't know. I'm with III on this. His track record has proven that he knows who can and can't play once he gets them on campus and sees them in practice. There really isn't a set number. The players decide that, not the coach. To be honest, I'm sure we're not all that far off in the way we're looking at this. But the way (no pun intended) I read your argument is essentially like, if player x doesn't perform to a certain threshold in practice, they don't see the court. That's certainly defensible, but I don't entirely agree with it. Like rooter said, there certainly have been some guys who shouldn't have seen burn (Henry his first two years, probably Moses last year). But I don't think that's the case for everyone. Some guys play in games better than they practice and vice versa. Let's presume Vee didn't cut it in practice. He certainly cut it in his 6 minutes a game, so I don't see why he didn't get a little more time out there. If he couldn't cut it at 10-12 minutes per game, I'd like to have seen that. At the end of the day, practice is a proxy for games. If the game results are better than the practice results, why are the practice results more probative of whether a guy can help the team? The other point is that some guys may perform better if they know they can sniff the court. A lot of people, in any line of business, are better when more responsibility is put on them than when they know they can coast. I'm definitely one of those people. I wouldn't be surprised if some guys think the door to more PT is essentially closed by the short rotation, and that if they knew there were 8-10 minutes available, they would bust themselves a little more in practice. I just think as much development goes on in play as goes on in practice. That's why you have the minors in baseball. That's why you loan youngsters out in soccer. And I think with an extremely young roster next year, a few more players need to get some run than they otherwise would.
|
|
RBHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,136
|
Post by RBHoya on Apr 19, 2011 22:00:44 GMT -5
Many people just overestimate the talent of these guys. For example Ayegba, I don't think anybody has ever seen him do much of anything except be 6'8.5 and pass the look test (which a ton of kids across the country do, every year) yet people consistently clamor for more PT for him. It's true that it's tough for guys to get better without game time, but the flip side of this that nobody ever mentions is the risk that throwing guys out there who aren't ready costs us games. We had a lot of BE wins this year where we won by less than 5 points. A LOT of BE games are like that, for every team. A turnover here, a mental mistake on defense there, and it could be the difference in the game. JTIII is not willing to risk that in the hopes that those 5 minutes of action make his bench players better bench players down the road. I think that's a fair perspective.
The other thing that many people seem to not fully "get" is that III recruits some players just to fill gaps. Not all recruits are expected to be starters or even major contributors some day. Some guys are just bodies to help in practice and play in emergencies. A lot of the spring recruits fit that mold, and are picked up because "Hey, we've got a scholarship to burn, why let it go to waste?"... Bring the guy in, see what he can do for a year or 2, and if it doesn't pan out everybody goes their separate ways, no hard feelings.
A lot of people say "Well, then, he should just give scholarships to guys who would otherwise be walk-ons." Awful idea. Get the best 13 guys you can on the team, every year. If the guys who don't make the rotation want to try their luck elsewhere, best of luck to them. They are all fungible anyway.
I can't think of a single coach in the country who plays more than 10 regularly, and most don't even play 10. And believe it or not, our 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th men are not any better than anyone elses. Some people act like the talent level here is so high that we MUST play 10 or more. Nah. It's no better here than at many other places that play 8 or 9 with no problem.
Next year's team is going to have 6 freshman (including Bowen). IMO there is not a chance in hell that all 6 graduate from Georgetown. Most likely 4, maybe even 3. I hope people will come to grips with this in the near future, will save us much wailing in the coming years.
|
|
|
Post by wahoohoya on Apr 19, 2011 22:28:05 GMT -5
the_way - are you JTIII in disguise? I mean - as crazy as it is for anybody here to think they know better than him, it's just as crazy to argue that he has never made a mistake in terms of managing the distribution of minutes and getting the most out of his players.
Throwing that aside, I fundamentally disagree with your core premise that players only develop in practice. Hogwash. Sometimes you need to be thrown into the fire. Sure, most of the development needs to happen in practice and during the off-season, but I would argue all day that some players need real game feedback to grow and that more game minutes can accelerate a player's development. In which case, a coach needs to find a balance between winning a game and improving the team over the course of a season (or multiple seasons).
And I say all of that fully acknowledging that some players just aren't ready to play - and that JTIII absolutely knows best there. I get that. But in a rebuilding year, you can afford to take more risks. That's all I'm saying - I hope he takes some more risks to best position the team in the years to come.
|
|
gujake
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 831
|
Post by gujake on Apr 19, 2011 22:57:10 GMT -5
People can always point to practice and say JT3 sees practice and we don't. There is no way to argue against that, and so people who claim that can really never be wrong. Even if Vee goes on to play extremely well somewhere else, those people will simply say, "well, he got better" or "well, he was behind better players at Georgetown", and again, there is really no way to argue against that.
All we as fans have to go on are the actual games (and to a lesser extent, Kenner). Vee played well when we got to see him, so I think it is natural to wonder why he didn't play more. Perhaps he really wasn't good in practice. Perhaps JT3 is stubborn. Perhaps it was something else. It's extremely likely we will never really know.
|
|
richfame
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by richfame on Apr 20, 2011 6:48:10 GMT -5
If someone says "well hes not playing well in practice." I find this comical. I only played up to varsity highschool and college intramural ball, but when your not a starter and your playing defense against teh first team you cant be that aggressive. You know the offense and you know where the man your guarding is going so you cant cheat. Its a tough spot you want to have high energy steal the ball and go to the other end of the court and dunk it but you kinda cant.
Really its how you perform and produce when you get into the game. Now yes I agree if your late to practice or completely listless I get it you can get into a coaches doghouse.
Bottom line Vee seemed to not get a complete fair shake. He played better than his minutes earned.
|
|
|
Post by berrypatch26 on Apr 20, 2011 7:08:18 GMT -5
[/quote]
III is developing his bench. You don't think he has tried all year, in practice? We only see the games. He sees the practices. The teaching and developing goes on in practice. Thats what happened to Nate. He earned his way into a starting lineup and never looked back.
You don't just play guys because they are on scholarship and have a pulse. You compete. Thats how you win. If you have only 7 guys that can do that. That play at a certain standard, then you just play those 7 guys. And then the other 5 guys know what standard needs to be met before they can play. That is how you get better.
If a guy isn't ready, putting him out on the court where he gets embarrassed and loses the little confidence he had to begin with makes it worse and sets you back further. You lose games as well.
in JTII's history, he hasn't been burned by not playing a guy. He has not erred in distributing minutes for guys over the course of the season. Not one season. When a guy steps out on the court, you see why they do (or don't) get a lot of minutes.
Guys who played sparingly usually transferred to lower schools or later on admitted that they were not putting forth the effort that they should have to get better.
The coach can coach and develop until he is blue in the face. Ultimately, it boils down to two things:
1) there has to be some raw talent there to begin with
2) the player has to commit himself to the teaching/coaching and working on his raw talent to become a better player and earn playing time.[/quote]
This is a good review of the situation. Thanks.
|
|
OldHoyafan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,387
|
Post by OldHoyafan on Apr 20, 2011 7:50:33 GMT -5
I've said it before, that I think a lot of the decisions made by JT3 on the players playing time was dictated by his efforts to have Freeman on the court as much as possible. Freeman was a great Hoya, but unfortunately he got to the hilltop 2 years too late. By that I mean he did not get to play with the entire frontcourt of Hibbert, Green, Summers and PE,Jr. That frontcourt covered for a lot of defensive liabilities of Wallace and Sapp. Freeman played with Hibbert and Summers, but Summers was forced to play big forward, which he was not especially defensive wise and rebounding wise, during that time. So Freeman played small forward at a time when there was no Hibbert at center and Green/PE,Jr. at big forward to cover up his defensive liabilities at small forward and at the two guard position. Monroe and Vaughn were not great shot blockers either, so JT3 could not play Freeman at the 2 guard position because his lack of foot speed would have put Monroe in constant foul trouble trying to help stop Freeman's man from gertting to the basket. Freeman was the teams best shooter and scorer and JT3 made the decision that in order for the Hoyas to win the past 3 years he had to be on the floor as much as possible. If he had the personnel equal to the Hibbert, Green/PE,Jr., and Summers he could have played Freeman at the 2 guard position, where he could have dominated on offense and been adequate on defense because of the combined help defense of those players. Now, you can't argue that when Freeman was hitting the 3, he gave the Hoyas the best chance to win. However, when he was not hitting the 3 and reluctant to post up a much taller small forward, I think ,as many have here, that some other combination should have been tried. I think we all would have liked to have seen Vee replace Clark for longer stretches in a game, but Vee I think was not as good of a help defender and rebounder as Clark, so Clark got the pt even when his 3pt shot was off. Its sad because the incoming freshman give JT3 the flexibility in the frontcourt that he has not had in awhile, that would have allowed him to play Vee a lot more when Clark or Starks was off his game and keep Vee in the game when he was the better player that night.
|
|
|
Post by bronxhoya87 on Apr 20, 2011 8:12:05 GMT -5
If JT3 plays a short bench in 2011-12 he is saying that either he is a terrible judge of talent or he is too stubborn to adjust. We have burned out the last few years at the end of the season partly because of a short rotation. Now I get that some schools can take fillers (Duke, Carolina, KU and Kentuck) when the cupboard is stocked sadly we are not part of those scriptures. All recruits at this time must be prêt-à-porter or dont waste time on them unless they are 7'0ft.
If Moses gets some run last year maybe Vaughn does not blow out a tire in February? Not saying Moses is great but he is a big body who can take up space. If you feel he is not skilled enough to be on the floor why recruit him? Again ICANTDO got major minutes at Yukon and he is pretty much useless from what I could see.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,440
|
Post by lichoya68 on Apr 20, 2011 8:18:58 GMT -5
what a thread wow ill wait till kenner to get some DATA and it is only kenner but some data on these recruits.. one thing HOLLIS BETTER PLAY ALOT YUP MOST OF ALL HELL BE THE MAN that im pretty sure about GO HOYAS
|
|