|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 11:22:05 GMT -5
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Feb 2, 2012 11:22:05 GMT -5
All bashing aside, Nate was key to beating UConn last night. He did not put up points, but he set some killer screens to get Hollis open, had some great passes within the offense, and was a tough body on D. The Hoyas don't need 10 points a night from him - they need the hustle plays he gave them last night. Exactly and the about the kid always plays hard he's only a freshman and coach asking him to do more he's trying and there will be break through we've seen flashes of good play but not enough, but now we're gonna be seeing more...The dive for the loose ball was key...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 11:44:35 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2012 11:44:35 GMT -5
Since a lot of what Nate does is off the ball, his contributions get missed so I wanted to highlight a couple of key plays from Nate last night. At the end of the first when we took control of this game Hollis scored 7 points in the last 4 minutes. The score before these things happened was 18-17 our way. Nate set a brush screen that Hollis curled off of and got the layup in the lane. Next play he set a backscreen on Boatright that free’d Hollis for a 3 (Nice pass by Hopkins). He also found Hollis on the last play off the half for a deuce. Second half when Uconn cut it to 6, he flashed hard to the top of the key on the inbounds, and made a nice drop feed to Jason who cut in and got the layup. There was more stuff in there, I just remember those 3 off the top of my head. We don’t need Nate to be a double double guy (would be nice We just need him to make winning plays. A lot of times we focus on the end result but have no idea of what took place to get us there...
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 11:45:47 GMT -5
Post by kchoya on Feb 2, 2012 11:45:47 GMT -5
All bashing aside, Nate was key to beating UConn last night. He did not put up points, but he set some killer screens to get Hollis open, had some great passes within the offense, and was a tough body on D. The Hoyas don't need 10 points a night from him - they need the hustle plays he gave them last night. Exactly and the about the kid always plays hard he's only a freshman
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 12:38:59 GMT -5
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 2, 2012 12:38:59 GMT -5
Add me to the chorus of those who thought Nate had a very positive impact last night. His screening has been terrific from day one and his on the ball defense was very good last night. The stats don't show the full rebounding numbers because he tipped a number of them to others.
I'd just like to see him make an aggressive play with the ball even once or twice a game. If he's not comfortable in the post, there's no reason he can't take a driving layup strong and/or take one open fifteen footer. We don't need him to force, of course, and we don't need more offense than that given our options.
|
|
blueeagle
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Win or lose, it's the school we choose.
Posts: 492
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 13:00:51 GMT -5
Post by blueeagle on Feb 2, 2012 13:00:51 GMT -5
I think that Nate gets criticized when the guys who are expected to produce do not. Why? We hope that when one of our key contributors fails do deliver, one of our role players picks up the slack. No dig on Nate, but he is one of our role players this year. I think it is just misplaced anger and frustration.
Nate has been doing the vital dirty work for the last 2 seasons. Does he have "bad" games? Yep. Does he miss defensive assignments at times? Yep. Has he missed point blank shots (and 3's)? Yep. Same can be said of everyone on the team.
Nate is a role player on this team. Championship teams need role players. Rambis, Oakley, Davis (Antonio or Dale), Rodman... Has he reached his full potential? I don't think so. But I don't expect him to score in double figures. Any offensive contribution from Nate is gravy. We just need our scorers to score and Nate to do his thing - rebound, defend, and scrap.
I am glad he is on OUR TEAM.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 13:25:29 GMT -5
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 2, 2012 13:25:29 GMT -5
Nate's a sophomore, by the way. And yes, he's been trying too hard and forcing things for most of the season. His first pass of the night last night was a forced, ill advised pass that was a good idea badly executed. My point certainly was not that Nate was THE sole reason the Hoyas won last night, but if you look at the whole game, he made multiple plays within the offense and on the defensive end that helped spur the team to a victory that made a very good team look very bad. As far as missed defensive assignments, many times it looks like Nate is the guy missing a rotation at the back of the defense but it's often a situation where somebody out top failed to stop penetration or one of the other bigs rotated over to double team when they should not have. He ends up looking like the guy out of position and it's not always his fault. That's the part of the matchup zone the Hoyas need to work on the most. It was better last night but can still improve a lot.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 13:31:22 GMT -5
Post by rosslynhoya on Feb 2, 2012 13:31:22 GMT -5
As far as missed defensive assignments, many times it looks like Nate is the guy missing a rotation at the back of the defense but it's often a situation where somebody out top failed to stop penetration or one of the other bigs rotated over to double team when they should not have. He ends up looking like the guy out of position and it's not always his fault. That's the part of the matchup zone the Hoyas need to work on the most. It was better last night but can still improve a lot. It's easier to blame Nate who we all know sucks than to criticize a self-proclaimed defensive mastermind
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 13:57:22 GMT -5
Post by bmartin on Feb 2, 2012 13:57:22 GMT -5
It's great that Nate sets screens and hustles and tips rebounds and all that, but if he is no threat to score that puts a hell of a lot of pressure on Hollis and Henry to be on all the time with the defense focusing on them.
Same goes for Whittington. If Nate and Whittington are left open they have to be able to score so teams have to guard them.
|
|
idhoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,177
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 14:59:08 GMT -5
Post by idhoya on Feb 2, 2012 14:59:08 GMT -5
Whitt hit a three off a curl last night. Need a few more of those.
|
|
blueeagle
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Win or lose, it's the school we choose.
Posts: 492
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 15:41:19 GMT -5
Post by blueeagle on Feb 2, 2012 15:41:19 GMT -5
I think that Whit's outside shot will be very effective in the future. Lack of arc - can be worked on. He doesn't really need to elevate given his height and so it is more of a set shot than a jump shot. Just need to work on consistent mechanics.
What he needs to do is watch a lot of game tapes of Magic Johnson. Not because he will be paying point for us. Watching Magic will show him how a guy his size can score on shorter defenders. It is a match up nightmare for smaller guards he will be going up against.
Imagine Whit posting up on Triche, Wayans, DJO, Kuric, Gibbs, Cotton, etc... Should be worth at least 6-8 points a game - at the least.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 15:46:25 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 2, 2012 15:46:25 GMT -5
I think that Whit's outside shot will be very effective in the future. Lack of arc - can be worked on. He doesn't really need to elevate given his height and so it is more of a set shot than a jump shot. Just need to work on consistent mechanics. What he needs to do is watch a lot of game tapes of Magic Johnson. Not because he will be paying point for us. Watching Magic will show him how a guy his size can score on shorter defenders. It is a match up nightmare for smaller guards he will be going up against. Imagine Whit posting up on Triche, Wayans, DJO, Kuric, Gibbs, Cotton, etc... Should be worth at least 6-8 points a game - at the least. His outside shot just needs a lot of practice. He's got the right form and all that (though it's long) from what I can see. But the problem I see most on the inside stuff is that he doesn't really seem to be shooting. Half his misses seem almost literal throws at the basket -- and much of the time he's not even looking at the rim. I think there's something to the rushing but I also think he's still adjusting to playing against other people with his size.
|
|
blueeagle
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Win or lose, it's the school we choose.
Posts: 492
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 15:56:33 GMT -5
Post by blueeagle on Feb 2, 2012 15:56:33 GMT -5
That's why watching Magic may help. Whit needs to know how to play small to protect the ball, but play big to score on shorter guys.
We were running plays for Whit and Otto during the Rutgers game where they were essentially positioned under the basket. They just need to finish consistently going forward. he should quit those floaters to nowhere that skim the rim.
Leave the floaters to Markel. Pull-up's too.
|
|
richfame
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,266
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 20:33:54 GMT -5
Post by richfame on Feb 2, 2012 20:33:54 GMT -5
All bashing aside, Nate was key to beating UConn last night. This comment is Delusional! I guess you didnt see The return of Hollis, or the big shots by Jason, or the intangibles of Otto or the surprising good play by Hopkins. Nate... Ok. Excuse me? If you look at point totals, you're right. However, Hollis doesn't get wide open for two of his 3s or get his easy second half layup without Nate's screens and passing. Jason doesn't score that easy layup out of the late second half timeout when UConn was trying to make a run without Nate's screen and dish to him from the top of the key. Of course the other guys contributed. I was actually at the game last night watching. How about you? I was watching the game on TV. Listen, I think Nate contributed just fine and had a positive game. Im just saying, im not ready to wax poetic about LUBIC after one positive half of basketball. I think he helped us win but to say he was the key to the game I just respectively disagree. I just think your happy we won the game(as I am) and Nate played well so your just going a bit overboard.... Its all good though..
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 20:37:06 GMT -5
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 2, 2012 20:37:06 GMT -5
At least spell the kid's name right. It's Lubick.
The reason I asked if you were there is that sometimes all the little things don't show up on TV - it depends on the director whether you get the full court view or the shot from the men's room where you can't see all the players.
And while you think I'm overselling, "one positive half of basketball" is way underselling.
Just saying.
P.S. - shouldn't you be ecstatic since you don't have to listen to all those local farmers crowing about another Yukon win?
|
|
richfame
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,266
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 20:56:06 GMT -5
Post by richfame on Feb 2, 2012 20:56:06 GMT -5
At least spell the kid's name right. It's Lubic k. The reason I asked if you were there is that sometimes all the little things don't show up on TV - it depends on the director whether you get the full court view or the shot from the men's room where you can't see all the players. And while you think I'm overselling, "one positive half of basketball" is way underselling. Just saying. P.S. - shouldn't you be ecstatic since you don't have to listen to all those local farmers crowing about another Yukon win? This game is like my superbowl. I hate the huskies. I remember going to teh civic center to watch hoyas(mourning/dikembe years) when I was a kid. I remember wearing my hoya parka and getting beer spilled on me and heckled(yeah when I was 14-15). So yeah you can say im ecstatic! Could be a special tournament run...
|
|
HoyaPride
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 484
|
Nate
Feb 2, 2012 21:15:10 GMT -5
Post by HoyaPride on Feb 2, 2012 21:15:10 GMT -5
Rich,
I agree with you totally. Live 10 minutes from Hartford. Got tix behind the Hoya Bench Othella's freshman year and watched him dismantle Ucon. Had face painted and King Othella taped to my shirt and Calhoun sucks on the back. I got alot of jaw, but was ready for it as a HS frosh. Today was a great day to wake up in CT.
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 1:13:48 GMT -5
Post by NTAMM on Feb 3, 2012 1:13:48 GMT -5
Nate's a sophomore, by the way. And yes, he's been trying too hard and forcing things for most of the season. His first pass of the night last night was a forced, ill advised pass that was a good idea badly executed. My point certainly was not that Nate was THE sole reason the Hoyas won last night, but if you look at the whole game, he made multiple plays within the offense and on the defensive end that helped spur the team to a victory that made a very good team look very bad. As far as missed defensive assignments, many times it looks like Nate is the guy missing a rotation at the back of the defense but it's often a situation where somebody out top failed to stop penetration or one of the other bigs rotated over to double team when they should not have. He ends up looking like the guy out of position and it's not always his fault. That's the part of the matchup zone the Hoyas need to work on the most. It was better last night but can still improve a lot. Come on; the on-the court play of Nate Lubick was not the key to the win at UConn. Clearly, Hollis, Henry, and Jason were they keys to winning. Their contributions were the most critical. Porter, Whittington, and Hopkins also were important contributors. The fact that Nate’s contributions are discussed in terms like “diving to the floor to tie up the ball,” “getting after loose balls,” “doing the dirty work,” “tipping rebounds,” “hustling,” or “setting screens,” only indicates that we are stretching for reasons to praise him – because his game has been lacking in other areas. The role of a power forward varies, depending on the team. In the Hoyas schemes, Nate is really needed to rebound, play physical defense, and be enough of an offensive threat to keep the opponent’s defense honest – to open up the offensive for the Hoyas shooters or punish the opponent’s defense of double teaming. We still did not see that from Lubick in the UConn game. What we did see was that UConn’s first score was the result of Lubick getting burned. The very next play (on offense), Lubick had a turnover with a bad pass, trying to force the ball inside. Little over three minutes into the game, Lubick was sent to the bench. He did not return to the court for another 10 to 12 minutes. One of the interesting features about the game was the play of Hopkins. He played well in the minutes he was given. Hopkins is taller and longer and quicker than Lubick. He did a number of things that Lubick has not done this year. Hopkins was able to elevate, shoot over, and score with a defender in his face. Additionally, at 6’ 11”, Hopkins was able to receive the ball on the perimeter, put the ball on the floor, drive to the basket, and finish at the rim. Does that mean that Hopkins is a better player than Lubick? – not necessarily. But, if Hopkins can give the type of play we saw against UConn, he will further eat into Lubick’s minutes. As is any win, the UConn game was a team win. Each player made their positive contribution to the win in their own special way. We can say that without exaggerating the play of any particular player.
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 2:21:02 GMT -5
Post by hoyas big supporter on Feb 3, 2012 2:21:02 GMT -5
Nate's a sophomore, by the way. And yes, he's been trying too hard and forcing things for most of the season. His first pass of the night last night was a forced, ill advised pass that was a good idea badly executed. My point certainly was not that Nate was THE sole reason the Hoyas won last night, but if you look at the whole game, he made multiple plays within the offense and on the defensive end that helped spur the team to a victory that made a very good team look very bad. As far as missed defensive assignments, many times it looks like Nate is the guy missing a rotation at the back of the defense but it's often a situation where somebody out top failed to stop penetration or one of the other bigs rotated over to double team when they should not have. He ends up looking like the guy out of position and it's not always his fault. That's the part of the matchup zone the Hoyas need to work on the most. It was better last night but can still improve a lot. Come on; it’s the on-the court play of Nate Lubick was not the key to the win at UConn. Clearly, Hollis, Henry, and Jason were they keys to winning. Their contributions were the most critical. Porter, Whittington, and Hopkins also were important contributors. The fact that Nate’s contributions are discussed in terms like “diving to the floor to tie up the ball,” “getting after loose balls,” “doing the dirty work,” “tipping rebounds,” “hustling,” or “setting screens,” only indicates that we are stretching for reasons to praise him – because his game has been lacking in other areas. The role of a power forward varies, depending on the team. In the Hoyas schemes, Nate is really needed to rebound, play physical defense, and be enough of an offensive threat to keep the opponent’s defense honest – to open up the offensive for the Hoyas shooters or punish the opponent’s defense of double teaming. We still did not see that from Lubick in the UConn game. What we did see was that UConn’s first score was the result of a Lubick getting burned. The very next play (on offense), Lubick had a turnover with a bad pass, trying to force the ball inside. Little over three minutes into the game, Lubick was sent to the bench. He did not return to the court for another 10 to 12 minutes. One of the interesting features about the game was the play of Hopkins. He played well in the minutes he was give. Hopkins is taller and longer and quicker than Lubick. He did a number of things that Lubick has not done this year. Hopkins was able to elevate, shoot over, and score with a defender in his face. Additionally, at 6’ 11”, Hopkins was able to receive the ball on the perimeter, put the ball on the floor, drive to the basket, and finish at the rim. Does that mean that Hopkins is a better player than Lubick? – not necessarily. But, if Hopkins can give the type of play we saw against UConn, he will further eat into Lubick’s minutes. As is any win, the UConn game was a team win. Each player made their positive contribution to the win in their own special way. We can say that without exaggerating the play of any particular player. Agree completely but Hopkins is 6'9'' at best fyi
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 5:48:39 GMT -5
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 3, 2012 5:48:39 GMT -5
Watch who sets the screens to free Hollis up for his first two buckets:
Facts are that no other player on the team fills that role in the offense as well.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,670
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 8:28:09 GMT -5
Post by seaweed on Feb 3, 2012 8:28:09 GMT -5
Otto sets that first screen and surely we want more than decent screens from our starting 4?
|
|