DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,560
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 9:00:28 GMT -5
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 3, 2012 9:00:28 GMT -5
Otto sets that first screen and surely we want more than decent screens from our starting 4? Absolutely, no question. Just pointing out to the "glue Nate to the bench" crowd that he does a lot of good things that help make the offense run. He's not needed to score. Would it be great if he scored more? Of course. Do I think he's the best player on the team? Of course not. The coaches (and his teammates) obviously think more highly of him than any of the armchair generals posting here. Their opinion actually counts.
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 9:04:52 GMT -5
Post by bigelephant on Feb 3, 2012 9:04:52 GMT -5
Otto sets that first screen and surely we want more than decent screens from our starting 4? Absolutely, no question. Just pointing out to the "glue Nate to the bench" crowd that he does a lot of good things that help make the offense run. He's not needed to score. Would it be great if he scored more? Of course. Do I think he's the best player on the team? Of course not. The coaches (and his teammates) obviously think more highly of him than any of the armchair generals posting here. Their opinion actually counts. AMEN
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 9:14:14 GMT -5
Post by kchoya on Feb 3, 2012 9:14:14 GMT -5
How many stupid arguments can we have in one thread?
Stupid argument #1 - unless you're a 6'8" 240lb 19-year-old DI hoops player, you can't criticize Nate Lubick.
Stupid argument #2 - Nate is somehow stealing Otto's minutes and Otto should be starting.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,664
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 9:20:01 GMT -5
Post by seaweed on Feb 3, 2012 9:20:01 GMT -5
I like the guy too but he has to grow out of his spazz shell, control his high degree of difficulty passing game and attack the hoop from time to time. I remember saying last year how nice it was to have a big who caught the ball and immediately seemed to think, yeah, I can dunk from here. He does not evidently think that way anymore and we need Hungry Nate back. If Hank can drive occasionally from the 3pt line and finish, nate has to be able to at least get a pullup
|
|
OldHoyafan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,387
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 12:48:42 GMT -5
Post by OldHoyafan on Feb 3, 2012 12:48:42 GMT -5
As long as JT3 has a short leach with Nate and Markel when they are not helping team on offense or defense, I don't have a problem with Nate and Markel continuing to start and Otto/Greg/Trawick coming off bench. III is hoping one if not both of these guys is going to come out of their near season long slump and provide early spark to Hoyas. USF game looks like it will be a slow paced game so Nate should be able to stay in longer from the start unless he gets lost on defensive rotation. Same with Markel unless he forgets to move his feet out front in the Hoya zone and picks up early fouls because of reaching.
|
|
KirbyKeger
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,106
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 14:02:31 GMT -5
Post by KirbyKeger on Feb 3, 2012 14:02:31 GMT -5
The concern with Nate's playing time now could be whether or not he begins to lose minutes to Hopkins. Though Nate has certainly steadied a bit over the past few games, Hopkins is coming along as well. Hopefully, competition fuels both of them.
|
|
idhoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,177
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 15:16:57 GMT -5
Post by idhoya on Feb 3, 2012 15:16:57 GMT -5
going forward, it seems Otto is not the threat to Nate's PT so much as Hopkins is. Trending forward.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 15:31:13 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 3, 2012 15:31:13 GMT -5
going forward, it seems Otto is not the threat to Nate's PT so much as Hopkins is. Trending forward. Nate plays two roles: 5 minutes at center and 13 mpg at PF. www.hoyaprospectus.com/2012/02/lineup-stats-through-10-conference.htmlHop gets about 5 minutes at center as well, and it's those minutes at center that I could really see Hopkins taking. Nate's scoring issues become a bigger problem when we're running the offense through him -- the PF role right now whether it's Nate or Otto is a supporting role. I'm not sure Hopkins has been on the floor with Sims all season -- and if so, it's been for far less than 1 mpg. I'm not sure I see him playing that role right now (PF) simply because it's something more to learn.
|
|
CO_Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,109
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 16:21:19 GMT -5
Post by CO_Hoya on Feb 3, 2012 16:21:19 GMT -5
I'm not sure Hopkins has been on the floor with Sims all season -- and if so, it's been for far less than 1 mpg. Sims and Hopkins played together for one possession against DePaul. Hopkins came in for Lubick with 8:44 left in the first half, after the Blue Demons called a 30-sec timeout. Your Hoyas lineup: Clark--Hopkins--Sims--Thompson--Whittington. DePaul scored, Jason Clark committed a turnover, then Porter came in for Sims. That's the only time they've been on the court together since conference play started. Thank you, thank you. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 16:31:11 GMT -5
Post by TBird41 on Feb 3, 2012 16:31:11 GMT -5
I'm not sure Hopkins has been on the floor with Sims all season -- and if so, it's been for far less than 1 mpg. Sims and Hopkins played together for one possession against DePaul. Hopkins came in for Lubick with 8:44 left in the first half, after the Blue Demons called a 30-sec timeout. Your Hoyas lineup: Clark--Hopkins--Sims--Thompson--Whittington. DePaul scored, Jason Clark committed a turnover, then Porter came in for Sims. That's the only time they've been on the court together since conference play started. Thank you, thank you. Don't forget to tip your waitress. With results like that, it's no surprise JT3 hasn't gone back to that lineup ;D
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 16:50:31 GMT -5
Post by skyhoya on Feb 3, 2012 16:50:31 GMT -5
with all these great coaching minds on the baord, why are we paying III $3M? we could just get a HS coach and let the board tell him how to coach and who to play for how many minutes. A coup[le times a day when I need a good laugh, I come to this board to read what all you have to say, laugh and then go back to my real job that pays the bills.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 17:44:48 GMT -5
Post by kchoya on Feb 3, 2012 17:44:48 GMT -5
with all these great coaching minds on the baord, why are we paying III $3M? we could just get a HS coach and let the board tell him how to coach and who to play for how many minutes. A coup[le times a day when I need a good laugh, I come to this board to read what all you have to say, laugh and then go back to my real job that pays the bills. I agree. We have all these people on here that think they know what they're talking about. People that says things like the following: Didn’t you get tired of PITT finding an open space, unguarded under the basket? I did. That’s III’s fault, he constantly rotates the players one at a time into the lineup. Each time we substituted, they ran that same set. After five minutes into the game, every two minutes we had a different line-up that doesn’t talk to each other on the floor. He needs to rotate the bigs in pairs, not one at a time. Or this: Slow starts- perhaps we should script five plays to start each half and start with some consistency. Vanilla, was a top fifty recruit- goes to show you what ESPN knows- 20 ppg in HS didn’t translate into 10 ppg at this level. Markel- makes the offense run, but gets the cheap fouls early and sits, Then, we are effectively without a point guard when this happens. We have now moved down to an eight man rotation. III needs to get rid of all his cronies at the end of the season and bring in some new coaching blood, none of which he should have coached or played with, perhaps from another coaching tree. He also has to get some enthusiasm into the players, they all played with no emotion, looked like robots.I think Jason was sick with the flu and Hollis is still struggling with the muscle pull. Or this: I know all you homers think that III is the greatest thing since sliced bread; He is just an average coach, who is stubborn, slow to react and slow to change.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
Member is Online
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 18:11:21 GMT -5
Post by guru on Feb 3, 2012 18:11:21 GMT -5
with all these great coaching minds on the baord, why are we paying III $3M? we could just get a HS coach and let the board tell him how to coach and who to play for how many minutes. A coup[le times a day when I need a good laugh, I come to this board to read what all you have to say, laugh and then go back to my real job that pays the bills. I agree. We have all these people on here that think they know what they're talking about. People that says things like the following: Didn’t you get tired of PITT finding an open space, unguarded under the basket? I did. That’s III’s fault, he constantly rotates the players one at a time into the lineup. Each time we substituted, they ran that same set. After five minutes into the game, every two minutes we had a different line-up that doesn’t talk to each other on the floor. He needs to rotate the bigs in pairs, not one at a time. Or this: Slow starts- perhaps we should script five plays to start each half and start with some consistency. Vanilla, was a top fifty recruit- goes to show you what ESPN knows- 20 ppg in HS didn’t translate into 10 ppg at this level. Markel- makes the offense run, but gets the cheap fouls early and sits, Then, we are effectively without a point guard when this happens. We have now moved down to an eight man rotation. III needs to get rid of all his cronies at the end of the season and bring in some new coaching blood, none of which he should have coached or played with, perhaps from another coaching tree. He also has to get some enthusiasm into the players, they all played with no emotion, looked like robots.I think Jason was sick with the flu and Hollis is still struggling with the muscle pull. Or this: I know all you homers think that III is the greatest thing since sliced bread; He is just an average coach, who is stubborn, slow to react and slow to change. Ooh! Another stirring episode of kchoya, Internet Archivist. Policing the interwebz for incidents of hypocrisy is truly God's work. Bravo!
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,911
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 18:11:40 GMT -5
Post by EtomicB on Feb 3, 2012 18:11:40 GMT -5
with all these great coaching minds on the baord, why are we paying III $3M? we could just get a HS coach and let the board tell him how to coach and who to play for how many minutes. A coup[le times a day when I need a good laugh, I come to this board to read what all you have to say, laugh and then go back to my real job that pays the bills. I agree. We have all these people on here that think they know what they're talking about. People that says things like the following: Didn’t you get tired of PITT finding an open space, unguarded under the basket? I did. That’s III’s fault, he constantly rotates the players one at a time into the lineup. Each time we substituted, they ran that same set. After five minutes into the game, every two minutes we had a different line-up that doesn’t talk to each other on the floor. He needs to rotate the bigs in pairs, not one at a time. Or this: Slow starts- perhaps we should script five plays to start each half and start with some consistency. Vanilla, was a top fifty recruit- goes to show you what ESPN knows- 20 ppg in HS didn’t translate into 10 ppg at this level. Markel- makes the offense run, but gets the cheap fouls early and sits, Then, we are effectively without a point guard when this happens. We have now moved down to an eight man rotation. III needs to get rid of all his cronies at the end of the season and bring in some new coaching blood, none of which he should have coached or played with, perhaps from another coaching tree. He also has to get some enthusiasm into the players, they all played with no emotion, looked like robots.I think Jason was sick with the flu and Hollis is still struggling with the muscle pull. Or this: I know all you homers think that III is the greatest thing since sliced bread; He is just an average coach, who is stubborn, slow to react and slow to change. Whoa!! KC, did you do the Dikembe "finger" wag after you hit send or what?
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 21:14:10 GMT -5
Post by skyhoya on Feb 3, 2012 21:14:10 GMT -5
leave kc alone, can't you see he doesn't have a life?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 22:02:00 GMT -5
Post by kchoya on Feb 3, 2012 22:02:00 GMT -5
I agree. We have all these people on here that think they know what they're talking about. People that says things like the following: Didn’t you get tired of PITT finding an open space, unguarded under the basket? I did. That’s III’s fault, he constantly rotates the players one at a time into the lineup. Each time we substituted, they ran that same set. After five minutes into the game, every two minutes we had a different line-up that doesn’t talk to each other on the floor. He needs to rotate the bigs in pairs, not one at a time. Or this: Slow starts- perhaps we should script five plays to start each half and start with some consistency. Vanilla, was a top fifty recruit- goes to show you what ESPN knows- 20 ppg in HS didn’t translate into 10 ppg at this level. Markel- makes the offense run, but gets the cheap fouls early and sits, Then, we are effectively without a point guard when this happens. We have now moved down to an eight man rotation. III needs to get rid of all his cronies at the end of the season and bring in some new coaching blood, none of which he should have coached or played with, perhaps from another coaching tree. He also has to get some enthusiasm into the players, they all played with no emotion, looked like robots.I think Jason was sick with the flu and Hollis is still struggling with the muscle pull. Or this: I know all you homers think that III is the greatest thing since sliced bread; He is just an average coach, who is stubborn, slow to react and slow to change. Ooh! Another stirring episode of kchoya, Internet Archivist. Policing the interwebz for incidents of hypocrisy is truly God's work. Bravo! I know the intertubes are confusing to some people, but it really didn't take more than 60 seconds to click on the guy's screen name and find the above drivel, which all came from one post. That was my 0.1 sacrifice to the gods of the billable hour.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Nate
Feb 3, 2012 22:04:00 GMT -5
Post by kchoya on Feb 3, 2012 22:04:00 GMT -5
leave kc alone, can't you see he doesn't have a life? So says the person also posting on a internet message board.
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 0:22:40 GMT -5
Post by NTAMM on Feb 4, 2012 0:22:40 GMT -5
Absolutely, no question. Just pointing out to the "glue Nate to the bench" crowd that he does a lot of good things that help make the offense run. He's not needed to score. Would it be great if he scored more? Of course. Do I think he's the best player on the team? Of course not. The coaches (and his teammates) obviously think more highly of him than any of the armchair generals posting here. Their opinion actually counts. AMEN Here is what we are seeing happening with Lubick. JTIII starts Lubick, but Porter gets the starters minutes. At the end of the game, in crunch time, Porter is usually on the floor. Recently, JTIII has put Lubick on a short leash, as witnessed by Lubick being sent to the bench less than four minutes into the UConn game. Lubick sat on the bench for nearly all the rest of the first half. Additionally, Hopkins got some minutes at the 4/5, played well, and did some good things that we have not seen Lubick do this season – in an important game. Apparently, the Hoya coaching staff is seeing, in his on-court performance, what so-called “arm chair coaches/critics” are seeing in Lubick’s play. Notice in my posts, I have never said that Lubick should not start, nor that Porter should start over Lubick. I generally trust the coaching staff on personnel decisions. And it is apparent that the coaching staff is expecting more from Lubick than setting screens and doing the so-called “intangibles.” In commenting on on-court performance, I am not critical of a player for what he cannot do. I have criticized Lubick’s play because he has demonstrated that he can be a much player than he has exhibited this year (and most of last season). I did not criticize Jerrelle Benimon because I never expected much from him – he simply did not have the physical tools nor the skill set to be an impact player. Maybe the coaching staff hoped he would be a project who could develop into an impact player. But, coming in, it is doubtful if he was expected to be much more than a practice player who might develop into a useful role player and sub. Lack of options in the front court forced JTIII to play Benimon major minutes. It often did not work out well. But, that is what generally happens when you are forced to give major minutes to a player who otherwise should have been limited to playing in blow-outs or “garbage time.” Let me give another example. I have been critical of Cincinnati’s Yancey Gates. He very well could have been (and should have been) a more athletic version of Jared Sullinger. (I have followed both Gates’ and Sullinger’s development their days in middle school.) I was critical of Yancey because he possessed the skill set to be a college superstar. Others have also noted that Yancey has/had the ability to be an absolute terror at power forward. I have criticized him for being lazy, undisciplined, and having a low basketball IQ. As a result, he has failed to unlock the skills he possessed that could have made him great. Again, I am critical of Yancey for failing to exploit his potential – for not playing the way he is capable of playing. Lubick is much different than Benimon. Lubick was a prized recruit with the skill set and basketball intelligence to contribute much more than he has been. For whatever reasons, Lubick is not playing the way he is capable of playing. Lubick is a good talent on a major Division I basketball program. His play does not need to be excused nor his contributions exaggerated. His disappointing play should be noted and he should be challenged to play like the player he is expected to be.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 1:00:42 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 4, 2012 1:00:42 GMT -5
NTAMM,
I generally like your posts, but I have to comment on this point: "His disappointing play should be noted and he should be challenged to play like the player he is expected to be."
Are you really trying to claim your criticism is here to motivate Nate Lubick?
Being an armchair coach/gm, etc., is interesting to us as fans and it's for our personal benefit that we do it. Pretending this is some sort of way to challenge Nate -- as if it is your responsibility and not the coaching staff's -- is just kinda silly.
No one that has defended Nate on this thread thinks that players are above criticism or that Nate has been spectacular. But it is absolutely undeniable that he draws a ridiculous amount of criticism, even for things that occurred while he wasn't even on the court.
For example, does anyone realize that Nate has the fourth highest Offensive Rating on the team in conference play? He's just barely behind Otto Porter, as well. Now, I'm not saying Nate is nearly as valuable offensively as Otto or even the number of players behind him -- as everyone can see, he doesn't use many possessions. But he's actually not killing us in conference play on offense.
You wouldn't know it from the comments.
Defense is a little tougher. Nate's +/- is the worst on the team, but most of that is due to the Hoyas' poor starts. Was that due to Nate? Some of it, but CO's net points put him as a worse defender than say, Otto Porter, but not abysmal. And he's rated by that metric as better than some of the board's defensive favorites. The metric is far from perfect, of course, but I don't see a defensive liability out there, at least not compared to his teammates.
Why isn't there a Henry thread bemoaning his sub-40% FG% in conference play? The immense amount of turnovers he's thrown away. Give credit to richfame -- he's criticized Hollis' disappearances at times but is pretty much the only one. Whittington can't hit the ocean if he falls out of a boat and is a gunner as well -- and people laud his one make when he goes 1-6.
I don't understand why everything Nate does is bad and warrants commentary, but others can play just as poorly at times and there is nothing. I guess I'd just like Nate to be evaluated by the same standards as everyone else. I was the same way the last few years with Henry Sims. Nate is just this year's whipping boy.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 9:32:16 GMT -5
Post by sleepy on Feb 4, 2012 9:32:16 GMT -5
Bravo SF. Clearly Nate has become the boards new Chris Wright.
|
|