|
Post by HometownHoya on Mar 11, 2013 13:24:18 GMT -5
I am suggesting as much. Here is why: minutes are a zero sum game. Whit averaged 35 minutes a game before he left. It would be quite difficult (read virtually impossible) to get DSR and Trawick the minutes anywhere close to what they have had (assuming not touching Porter's or Stark's minutes) without losing Whit. This team needed what DSR and Trawick bring more than what was lost with Whit. Greg was playing poorly before he left as was DSR, Otto, and the whole team in general.. I don’t believe the team would have continued at the same trajectory so I don’t share your view. The season was always going to end with Otto playing a lot of 4 and the offense running through him.. That is the real key. If you think that Greg's low offensive output would have continued. Many of us think he would have improved and maybe even gotten hot to close out the season (law of averages). Obviously him leaving did open up more minutes for everyone else but whose to say they wouldn't start producing in their slightly smaller roles. Finally, I agree that we would have started to see Otto at the 4 with or without Greg. All that would have meant is that Nate would have played more 5 then 4 and we would rarely see Moses and Hopkins. This would be an average length team and I'm sure we would still be in the NCAAs.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 11, 2013 13:32:03 GMT -5
Truly it's impossible to know. For sure, DSR, Jabril and Moses would not have gotten as much time as they have, but it's hard to know whether Greg's overall defensive and offensive efforts would have compensated for what they've brought to the table. Presumably, DSR would not have developed as quickly, and he's had some big moments, but he's also had games where he has played like a freshman. The same things with Nate (who I assume would have seen fewer overall minutes); Greg and Nate have wildly different skill-sets. Sometimes, Nate's passing would have been lost with less time, but Greg probably is much more valuable against, say, the Cuse zone.
The "Otto question" is even trickier. It seems likely his overall numbers would be significantly lower with Greg around. But that doesn't necessarily mean the team would have been worse off. Instead of "Otto for POY" talk, there could be talk about "Georgetown's two-headed 6'9" monster." That is, the overall production may have been the same or higher.
Tough to say and of course we'll never know.
I think we can all agree (to the extent all of us ever agree about anything), that if Greg were to comeback right now, it could only improve the team. There's no way he'd start, so you could manipulate his usage in a way that made sense in a given game (need a defender against a tall outside threat like a Ryan Kelly? Greg gets more time; need tough defense against a smaller guard? Jabril gets more time; need to see if you can catch three-point lightning in a bottle? DSR.). I'm oversimplifying, but the bottom line is that it gives you more options, which are important in a tournament setting. Most importantly, he'd be a wonderful hedge against foul trouble to any of the three starting bigs. That's his biggest advantage; he does things that Mikael, Nate, and Moses all cannot do.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 11, 2013 14:21:40 GMT -5
I think this is where the minutes were headed with Whittington: Porter 35 Starks 35 Whittington 35 Lubick 20 Trawick 20 Smith-Rivera 20 Hopkins 15 Ayegba 10 Bowen 5 Others 5
What we ended up with was Porter 35 Starks 35 Lubick 30 DSR 30 Trawick 30 Hopkins 20 Ayegba 10 Bowen 5 Others 5
With Whittington, there would have been less need to have Lubick & Hopkins on the floor at the same time, so some of his minutes would have come from those two. There also would have been less time with both Trawick & DSR on the floor together. The team would have even more flexibility to play big or small, inside or outside, press, trap, etc. Either way, I think the team and coach would have figured out how to run the offense through Otto more.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,948
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 11, 2013 15:31:43 GMT -5
I believe the starting line-up would be Nate, Otto, Greg, Jabril & Markel had GW stayed eligible. DSR would be 1st off the bench and Hop & Mo would spell Nate depending on matchups, foul trouble ect.. Jabril, DSR & Moses would have seen a little less PT but not a huge amount.
Also can someone who feels the team is better w/o Greg point out to the board a game the team would have lost if Greg had played? In all the threads on this topic or all the game threads, I still haven't read any post stating "the team would or could not have done that with GW in the line-up"
We all know his style of play and what he brought to the table so it should easy to point out at least a couple of examples..
Here's one from Pro GW camp.. I'd bet almost anything that if Greg had been playing in his normal spot in the zone during the USF game they wouldn't have hit all those 3's to start the 2nd half and the team would have won that night.
|
|
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 Mar 11, 2013 15:48:05 GMT -5
I doubt the starting lineup would have changed.
|
|
gahoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 621
|
Post by gahoya on Mar 11, 2013 16:46:08 GMT -5
There is no way the team is better without Whit. I don't think anyone is saying that. Instead, that Whitt's absence allowed JTII to see the changes that needed to be made that would have helped regardless of whether or not he was playing.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 11, 2013 17:02:56 GMT -5
III has said repeatedly that the team is not better off without Greg. On the radio, in print and on TV. During the broadcast of either the Villanova game or the Syracuse game, the broadcasters spoke of how III told them directly that the team would be "much better" with Greg in the lineup. I know many on the board take III's word as close to gospel so why is there still any debate over this?
Granted I understand the thinking that would make one conclude that III would not have expanded the rotation. That is an issue I too have had with III over the years. Still I feel that III would have not stay with the strategy he had in the first Marquette game in which he essentially played only five guys. The Pitt defeat probably would have made him shake up things a bit. The team would have gotten better with Greg just as it had without him. Both the coaches and the players had too much pride not to improve their oncourt performance.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 11, 2013 17:40:43 GMT -5
Only thing to worry about with Whit is whether he can make it back for next year. Are we even worrying about that too much? At the risk of being viewed as pollyannaish, let me say Greg is still on the team. He is even practicing with the players and III himself said at one point that there was a small chance that Greg would return to the lineup this season. It looks as if that possibility is highly unlikely now, but it suggested to me that while Greg messed up it wasn't bad enough to make his suspension absolute and permanent for the remaining of the season (and obviously not bad enough to be kicked out of school in general). This is the first student-athlete academic crisis that we are aware of in the III era. We don't know how he handles such situations or even what is the criteria he has put in place to determine if a player is to be suspended. I'm sure some have heard rumors as have I, but in the end none of us on these boards know all the details about what went down. For all we are aware of the missteps (academic or otherwise) that Greg made would warrant a suspension of only a couple of games on 95% of the other teams in the nation. Perhaps III simply has much higher standards. What we do know is that Greg is still on the team and contributing. He is on the bench of every home game and cheering his teammates on. His teammates speak of him as being a member of the squad. III has gone on radio and said that Greg remains a big part of the program's future. Those were his words. That recruit, Copeland, who just committed to the Hoyas spoke of how the Gtown coaches showed him footage of both Otto and Greg as an example of how they would use him. Is III really going to show him limited clips of Greg if that was a guy he was not sure of being an upstanding student athlete who would be going forward with the program itself? "Hey, look at these clips of our truant who managed to start a handful of games before we booted him from the team?" Based upon what Copeland and other recruits say about the recruiting pitch they get from the Hoya staff, III isn't merely selling what the players do on the court, but what the players are expected to be off the court as well. How can Copeland come away impressed with the culture and academic standards of GU if one of the two players the staff is using to sell the program to him is a guy (Greg) whose character and dedication they are unsure of? I guess it is possible Greg could be asked to depart the school, or flunk out or transfer on his own free will. But until that happens, if it does in the first place, I will assume he is coming back next season. Just as I will believe players like Bolden and Hayes and Bowen won't transfer as a result of playing time. Sure those transfers could happen too but, again, until it actually happens it is not a reality.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,781
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 11, 2013 18:02:30 GMT -5
My general thoughts: Hoya ProspectusI also think there's a very, very good chance Greg is back playing with us next year. Why worry about it? He seems engaged. If the rumors are true, the issue isn't one that should last past this semester. People are talking themselves into things for no real reason. When we're talking about Greg for next year, we should be talking about how improved he should come back. Greg with fewer turnovers and a 35%+ three ball is a star.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 11, 2013 18:06:24 GMT -5
I, too, look forward to Greg being a great player for us next year.
But damn, wouldn't it be nice if we could unveil a little surprise weapon off the bench this weekend in NYC?
Wishful thinking, I know.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,035
|
Post by jwp91 on Mar 11, 2013 18:07:14 GMT -5
III has said repeatedly that the team is not better off without Greg. On the radio, in print and on TV. During the broadcast of either the Villanova game or the Syracuse game, the broadcasters spoke of how III told them directly that the team would be "much better" with Greg in the lineup. I know many on the board take III's word as close to gospel so why is there still any debate over this? Granted I understand the thinking that would make one conclude that III would not have expanded the rotation. That is an issue I too have had with III over the years. Still I feel that III would have not stay with the strategy he had in the first Marquette game in which he essentially played only five guys. The Pitt defeat probably would have made him shake up things a bit. The team would have gotten better with Greg just as it had without him. Both the coaches and the players had too much pride not to improve their oncourt performance. I acknowledged the coach's expertise in my original post. I have a different opinion....even if it is not competent...I still get to have it.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Mar 11, 2013 19:46:14 GMT -5
III has said repeatedly that the team is not better off without Greg. On the radio, in print and on TV. During the broadcast of either the Villanova game or the Syracuse game, the broadcasters spoke of how III told them directly that the team would be "much better" with Greg in the lineup. I know many on the board take III's word as close to gospel so why is there still any debate over this? Granted I understand the thinking that would make one conclude that III would not have expanded the rotation. That is an issue I too have had with III over the years. Still I feel that III would have not stay with the strategy he had in the first Marquette game in which he essentially played only five guys. The Pitt defeat probably would have made him shake up things a bit. The team would have gotten better with Greg just as it had without him. Both the coaches and the players had too much pride not to improve their oncourt performance. I acknowledged the coach's expertise in my original post. I have a different opinion....even if it is not competent...I still get to have it. Of course you are entitled to your opinion...people may disagree with you, but it is still your opinion P.S.: I side with you
|
|
mapei
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by mapei on Mar 11, 2013 20:18:59 GMT -5
We're all speculating, which is what sports fans do. I think the 85 Hoyas would beat the 84 Hoyas in a fair series, but who the hell knows? It's still fun to discuss.
I tend to agree with jwp. We've been so much better without Greg than we were with him. I was actually a little disappointed in Greg this year compared to what I expected after seeing him last year. But next year? I hope he comes back, does his class work, and is among our top 3 in both scoring and rebounding.
As an aside, I also hope Josh Smith can lose about 30 pounds. He looks really awful in person. I feel for him, but we need him in *much* better shape if he is to meet expectations.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 11, 2013 20:45:53 GMT -5
Most Jesuits, at least the ones that taught me, would probably disagree with the notion that everyone, right or wrong, is entitled to their own opinion. At least I know William O'Malley, SJ, and Lawrence Wroblewski, SJ, would.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,781
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 11, 2013 20:50:20 GMT -5
Most Jesuits, at least the ones that taught me, would probably disagree with the notion that everyone, right or wrong, is entitled to their own opinion. At least I know William O'Malley, SJ, and Lawrence Wroblewski, SJ, would. It's quite possibly one of the silliest ideas out there. Yes, no one can stop you from having an opinion. I mean, short of drugging you or killing you. Which, you know, would be wrong. But entitled? I suppose literally, the right to legally voice your opinion also implies you have the right to have it... but when people say it, they generally mean that they have the right to have that opinion and that therefore you shouldn't denigrate them for having that opinion. Which is silly. And pretty much anytime you pull that line out, you know you're clinging to an opinion someone has ripped apart and your only answer is, "Well, it may be stupid and dumb and provably wrong, but dammit, I have a legal right to be stupid and dumb and provably wrong!"
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,035
|
Post by jwp91 on Mar 11, 2013 20:54:59 GMT -5
Most Jesuits, at least the ones that taught me, would probably disagree with the notion that everyone, right or wrong, is entitled to their own opinion. At least I know William O'Malley, SJ, and Lawrence Wroblewski, SJ, would. It's quite possibly one of the silliest ideas out there. Yes, no one can stop you from having an opinion. I mean, short of drugging you or killing you. Which, you know, would be wrong. But entitled? I suppose literally, the right to legally voice your opinion also implies you have the right to have it... but when people say it, they generally mean that they have the right to have that opinion and that therefore you shouldn't denigrate them for having that opinion. Which is silly. And pretty much anytime you pull that line out, you know you're clinging to an opinion someone has ripped apart and your only answer is, "Well, it may be stupid and dumb and provably wrong, but dammit, I have a legal right to be stupid and dumb and provably wrong!" Yea...except that about half the posters on this thread don't disagree.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,326
|
Post by tashoya on Mar 11, 2013 21:04:26 GMT -5
There is a difference between disagreeing with your opinion and disagreeing with your right to have one. I think you're mostly reading into things that aren't there. You may get chided for your opinion but that isn't the same as someone saying you don't get to have and/or posit one.
That said, I'm with SF and MCI. I keep thinking that Greg is a big part of the reason that the guys (especially Otto and likely DSR) have progressed the way they have. Playing against Greg in practice is a very rare luxury. I also keep thinking that the inverse has to be true as well. I'm excited to see where Greg is at when (if) he returns for us. I haven't spent much time wondering if he'll be back next year because, to me, all signs point to the answer being yes, he will be back. Not that our University is the most forthcoming but, as MCI pointed out, all indications are that Greg is on the squad and, since he could have possibly returned this year, likely will be back next semester. In any case, we have plenty of time to disagree on this in the offseason. I really appreciate the contribution Greg has made this season.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 11, 2013 21:16:46 GMT -5
I wonder how much of Otto's improvement relates to likely being defended by Whit in practice. I am thinking 15.6%. This could be right, but I think that Otto's game has had more room to breathe, Greg & Otto have the same skill set. Overall though the offense is more fluid, Greg's outside shooting was in a slump at the time of the suspension I have read that theory a few times regarding Greg getting more room to breathe. Possibly there is some validity to that. But with all due respect I still think the two best offensive showings by Gtown this season, based upon competition, came against UCLA and Indiana. Both included Otto and Greg in the starting lineup playing very effectively. The offensive performance against Texas wasn't all that shabby either. Of course there were some clunkers along the way too, but the games I mentioned above tell me that the Hoyas could have been very dynamic if Greg hadn't been suspended and the team started to click again. I watched the UCLA and Indiana games again this weekend and what I noticed was 1)both Greg and Otto's outside shots were falling 2)the Hoyas pushed the pace faster than normal and 3)Hopkins, especially in the Indiana game, played very well. None of these three characteristics were apparent in the Marquette and Pitt games to begin the BE season.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Mar 11, 2013 21:20:53 GMT -5
This could be right, but I think that Otto's game has had more room to breathe, Greg & Otto have the same skill set. Overall though the offense is more fluid, Greg's outside shooting was in a slump at the time of the suspension I have read that theory a few times regarding Greg getting more room to breathe. Possibly there is some validity to that. But with all due respect I still think the two best offensive showings by Gtown this season, based upon competition, came against UCLA and Indiana. Both included Otto and Greg in the starting lineup playing very effectively. The offensive performance against Texas wasn't all that shabby either. Of course there were some clunkers along the way too, but the games I mentioned above tell me that the Hoyas could have been very dynamic if Greg hadn't been suspended and the team started to click again.
I watched the UCLA and Indiana games again this weekend and what I noticed was 1)both Greg and Otto's outside shots were falling 2)the Hoyas pushed the pace faster than normal and 3)Hopkins, especially in the Indiana game, played very well. None of these three characteristics were apparent in the Marquette and Pitt games to begin the BE season. You have managed to stay above the fray and have made some very vaild points. Side Note: I assume your avatar of Avery Brooks toasting is from his "Deep Space Nine" days and not from "A Man Called Hawk"/"Spencer For Hire" days
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,781
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 11, 2013 21:22:43 GMT -5
Yea...except that about half the posters on this thread don't disagree. I can see how you would think how my post would apply to you -- given that it is in this thread and all -- but I didn't mean to imply that. Just responding to Boz. Didn't even realize the thread.
|
|