dense
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,014
|
Post by dense on Feb 11, 2015 12:04:32 GMT -5
Hopkins for all his offensive faults plays amazing defense. People on this board seems to forget that all the time because of his offensive problems. Hopkins was the starting center on a big east championship team. He is light years ahead of Hayes. Our best stretch last night came with him at center. Not fouling is a component of good defense. Yes but fouling by a center isn't always a product of him. If it's a turn style going down the lane, some fouls are unavoidable. This particular hoyas team is terrible at transition defense for some reason. I think it's just playing freshmen who sulk or watch after something bad happens. Hopkins is the best defender on the team and it's not even close.
|
|
hoyasaxa2003
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,889
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 11, 2015 12:08:10 GMT -5
My thing is fairness. 1) If you allow others to play even with faults, all should get that opportunity. 2) Henry Simms is a prime example of allowing a player to gain confidence and not pull him after his first mistake can help a player performance on the court. Henry play his senior is why the team had success. 3) If Josh is allowed minutes, Hayes should get 2 times that amount. 4) He is 7 feet. As most coaches say in basketball, you cant teach height. 5) Don't let the bigs foul out in big games. Use Hayes 5 fouls as well. I have plenty more. But that's enough for now. :-) College basketball is not about being fair, it is about playing a strong, competitive game, and winning those games. By necessity, the best players are going to get more time than the less skilled players. That's true at virtually every level of the game. (1) Everybody has faults, but certain people have more faults than others. Smith is not great on defense, but he's a very good offensive player. Hopkins is awful on offensive, but he is a very good defender. Hayes is neither, therefore, he plays less. (2) Henry Sims, by his own admission, did not work as hard on basketball until his junior and then especially, his senior year. If you look at his minutes, he barely played his first two years behind Greg Monroe (again, given how great Monroe was, this isn't surprising), then improved a bit in his junior year, and then really exploded his senior year. This was more about his effort into improving than the amount of minutes he got. He got more minutes because he got better, not vice-versa. (3) If you think Hayes should get 2x as many minutes as Josh Smith, I really have no idea why I am even bothering to respond to this. (4) There are plenty of 7 foot guys in college basketball that barely play because they aren't skilled enough and never develop. You cannot teach height, but you can teach and work on skills, and many of these guys never develop the skills. (5) Obviously, we don't want our bigs to foul out. The solution is to try to have Smith/Hopkins foul less, not play Hayes more.
|
|
dense
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,014
|
B. Hayes
Feb 11, 2015 12:08:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dense on Feb 11, 2015 12:08:59 GMT -5
What is the justification for this idea that a player needs game minutes to improve? I understand that playing in a game is different than practice, but it's not going to magically transform a below-average player into a solid contributor. I just do not understand the notion that only if Bradley Hayes got 3-5 minutes a game, he'd be so much better prepared to play? Hopkins is actually a great example of this. He's played a ton of minutes and his offense has not improved much of the last 4 years. Based on the logic of the Hayes advocates, Hopkins' minutes should have transformed him into a beast right now. The fact is that most of Hayes' playing time comes in practice, which means we do not see it. Does anybody seriously think that if Hayes was showing promise in practice, that John Thompson III would hurt the team and its success by keeping him on the bench? Of course not. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that Hayes has not shown enough ability in practice to warrant playing time. Hayes' play last night confirmed the fact that he's not ready for prime time. He seemed clueless on offense, and he was not much better defensively. No matter who the coaching staff is, you cannot transform a player who doesn't have the innate skill to improve. Hayes came in as a project and he seems to still be a project. Maybe he'll have a nice jump and give us a solid contribution next year, but at this point, I think he's unlikely to ever see a ton of time given the incoming class. This! Look people are setting up this strawman argument using Hopkins. Hopkins knows where to be. He might not be able to finish well but he plays great defense and is the decent passer for a big.
|
|
|
Post by michaeldm9 on Feb 11, 2015 12:11:40 GMT -5
Totally Agree!!!! Just let the kid try to get some confidence. 3 minutes is not enough. There is know way I can believe Josh work harder than anybody on the team to deserve the amount of time he gets. Whether Josh works "harder" than Hayes really doesn't matter. The fact is, Josh is a substantially better basketball player than Hayes, and that's why he plays a lot. Saying you want Hayes to get more than 3 minutes is basically saying you want us to intentionally play a weaker player when we have better ones on the bench. That makes no sense. No those who works the hardest should play the most. Josh is not better player. He may have better talent but not a better player. There is a lot of players out there who has talent but their work ethic is garbage. Josh college career has shown what he is about; deleted
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 11, 2015 12:13:36 GMT -5
What is the justification for this idea that a player needs game minutes to improve? I understand that playing in a game is different than practice, but it's not going to magically transform a below-average player into a solid contributor. I just do not understand the notion that only if Bradley Hayes got 3-5 minutes a game, he'd be so much better prepared to play? Hopkins is actually a great example of this. He's played a ton of minutes and his offense has not improved much of the last 4 years. Based on the logic of the Hayes advocates, Hopkins' minutes should have transformed him into a beast right now. The fact is that most of Hayes' playing time comes in practice, which means we do not see it. Does anybody seriously think that if Hayes was showing promise in practice, that John Thompson III would hurt the team and its success by keeping him on the bench? Of course not. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that Hayes has not shown enough ability in practice to warrant playing time. Hayes' play last night confirmed the fact that he's not ready for prime time. He seemed clueless on offense, and he was not much better defensively. No matter who the coaching staff is, you cannot transform a player who doesn't have the innate skill to improve. Hayes came in as a project and he seems to still be a project. Maybe he'll have a nice jump and give us a solid contribution next year, but at this point, I think he's unlikely to ever see a ton of time given the incoming class. My thing is fairness. 1) If you allow others to play even with faults, all should get that opportunity. 2) Henry Simms is a prime example of allowing a player to gain confidence and not pull him after his first mistake can help a player performance on the court. Henry play his senior is why the team had success. 3) If Josh is allowed minutes, Hayes should get 2 times that amount. 4) He is 7 feet. As most coaches say in basketball, you cant teach height. 5) Don't let the bigs foul out in big games. Use Hayes 5 fouls as well. I have plenty more. But that's enough for now. :-) True story. I went to a small high school that played in a small league. A friend of mine growing up was 6'7", and in our league, that was the equivalent of having a seven footer -- probably the equivalent of having a 7'2" guy. Here's the thing: he tried really hard, but he stunk. He couldn't do any one thing better than below average. Sure, he got some rebounds by default. And some opposing players were scared of driving hard to the basket based on his size. So, yes, you "can't teach big," and that had its (small) advantages. But he wasn't mobile. He had poor instincts. He couldn't finish from anywhere on the court, particularly if he was even nominally defended. And he was physically weak. His parents got him good coaching; our high school coach worked tirelessly with him, trying to teach him just decent fundamental defense and one "go to" post move; and -- like I said -- he tried really, really hard. But all the hard work and effort -- and all the playing time in games -- just didn't do anything to improve his performance. There were other players with faults (including me -- including everyone!), but every other decently-sized kid was just a better option on the court. It wasn't the coaches' fault. Heck, it wasn't his fault. But it would have been outright coaching malpractice to have given him time in games once it became apparent that he wasn't improving and there were others who gave you a better option to win. Effort is great, but all the effort in the world doesn't put the ball in the basket. Finally -- as for no. 5 -- that's exactly what we do! If it ever gets to a point that both bigs are at risk of fouling out, well, you see BH in the game! I didn't check, but I don't think both have fouled out of the same game too many times this year.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,040
|
Post by jwp91 on Feb 11, 2015 12:13:57 GMT -5
No, I don't see what is happening in practice.
Here is how I look at it.
We are going to need a 3rd string center with foul prone centers playing in front of him. Last night is a prime example.
Apparently, Hayes is our 3rd team center.
What is JT3 doing to ensure he is ready?
Just putting him in the game at the time of need is...in my experience...not a strategy for success.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 11, 2015 12:17:49 GMT -5
Totally Agree!!!! Just let the kid try to get some confidence. 3 minutes is not enough. There is know way I can believe Josh work harder than anybody on the team to deserve the amount of time he gets. Whether Josh works "harder" than Hayes really doesn't matter. The fact is, Josh is a substantially better basketball player than Hayes, and that's why he plays a lot. Saying you want Hayes to get more than 3 minutes is basically saying you want us to intentionally play a weaker player when we have better ones on the bench. That makes no sense. While I agree with you, I also will point out that there's a lot of assumptions being made about work ethic that don't seem to jive with anything we've seen.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 11, 2015 12:19:34 GMT -5
there's a lot of assumptions being made Alternative definition for 'Hoyatalk' in Merriam Webster.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 11, 2015 12:20:10 GMT -5
My thing is fairness. 1) If you allow others to play even with faults, all should get that opportunity. 2) Henry Simms is a prime example of allowing a player to gain confidence and not pull him after his first mistake can help a player performance on the court. Henry play his senior is why the team had success. 3) If Josh is allowed minutes, Hayes should get 2 times that amount. 4) He is 7 feet. As most coaches say in basketball, you cant teach height. 5) Don't let the bigs foul out in big games. Use Hayes 5 fouls as well. I have plenty more. But that's enough for now. :-) True story. I went to a small high school that played in a small league. A friend of mine growing up was 6'7", and in our league, that was the equivalent of having a seven footer -- probably the equivalent of having a 7'2" guy. Here's the thing: he tried really hard, but he stunk. He couldn't do any one thing better than below average. Sure, he got some rebounds by default. And some opposing players were scared of driving hard to the basket based on his size. So, yes, you "can't teach big," and that had its (small) advantages. But he wasn't mobile. He had poor instincts. He couldn't finish from anywhere on the court, particularly if he was even nominally defended. And he was physically weak. His parents got him good coaching; our high school coach worked tirelessly with him, trying to teach him just decent fundamental defense and one "go to" post move; and -- like I said -- he tried really, really hard. But all the hard work and effort -- and all the playing time in games -- just didn't do anything to improve his performance. There were other players with faults (including me -- including everyone!), but every other decently-sized kid was just a better option on the court. It wasn't the coaches' fault. Heck, it wasn't his fault. But it would have been outright coaching malpractice to have given him time in games once it became apparent that he wasn't improving and there were others who gave you a better option to win. Effort is great, but all the effort in the world doesn't put the ball in the basket. Finally -- as for no. 5 -- that's exactly what we do! If it ever gets to a point that both bigs are at risk of fouling out, well, you see BH in the game! I didn't check, but I don't think both have fouled out of the same game too many times this year. Great post. I'd also throw in succinctly: What's fair is that every player has a chance to earn minutes. Those minutes are based on how good you are. That's fair.
|
|
|
Post by michaeldm9 on Feb 11, 2015 12:23:50 GMT -5
My thing is fairness. 1) If you allow others to play even with faults, all should get that opportunity. 2) Henry Simms is a prime example of allowing a player to gain confidence and not pull him after his first mistake can help a player performance on the court. Henry play his senior is why the team had success. 3) If Josh is allowed minutes, Hayes should get 2 times that amount. 4) He is 7 feet. As most coaches say in basketball, you cant teach height. 5) Don't let the bigs foul out in big games. Use Hayes 5 fouls as well. I have plenty more. But that's enough for now. :-) College basketball is not about being fair, it is about playing a strong, competitive game, and winning those games. By necessity, the best players are going to get more time than the less skilled players. That's true at virtually every level of the game. (1) Everybody has faults, but certain people have more faults than others. Smith is not great on defense, but he's a very good offensive player. Hopkins is awful on offensive, but he is a very good defender. Hayes is neither, therefore, he plays less. ----> I may be dating you. One of GTown greatest player who just got a chance to play and made the best of his opportunity. Was not a top recruit or big time athlete. Just a hard worker. Charles Smith. (2) Henry Sims, by his own admission, did not work as hard on basketball until his junior and then especially, his senior year. If you look at his minutes, he barely played his first two years behind Greg Monroe (again, given how great Monroe was, this isn't surprising), then improved a bit in his junior year, and then really exploded his senior year. This was more about his effort into improving than the amount of minutes he got. He got more minutes because he got better, not vice-versa. ----> No He got minutes because JTIII had no other center that year. Julian Vaughn stunk the last 10 games of his senior. Year. Why didn't sit if it is about performance. (3) If you think Hayes should get 2x as many minutes as Josh Smith, I really have no idea why I am even bothering to respond to this. ---> This is why Josh career has been the way its been. No one has pushed him, and when they do he quits. Last season Josh was really good. Oh yea, he let the team down as usual. (4) There are plenty of 7 foot guys in college basketball that barely play because they aren't skilled enough and never develop. You cannot teach height, but you can teach and work on skills, and many of these guys never develop the skills. ---> When has it been proven that he doesn't have the skill. What game has he played sufficient minutes to establish he doesn't have the skill (5) Obviously, we don't want our bigs to foul out. The solution is to try to have Smith/Hopkins foul less, not play Hayes more. YES!!! I am with you on this Point. No argument here. I will be quiet. :-)
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 11, 2015 12:24:51 GMT -5
No, I don't see what is happening in practice. Here is how I look at it. We are going to need a 3rd string center with foul prone centers playing in front of him. Last night is a prime example. Apparently, Hayes is our 3rd team center. What is JT3 doing to ensure he is ready? Just putting him in the game at the time of need is...in my experience...not a strategy for success. What if the staff has worked with him diligently to help him improve and he's still not very good? I don't what's going on off the court, but what if Broadus is getting up at six to do shuttle work with him and JTIII is teaching him a hook shot and Hopkins is taking extra time to guard him and whatever... and this is still him? Improvement isn't automatic. It isn't guaranteed. I suppose 3-5 minutes of game play couldn't hurt his development, but if they are working 2+ hours every day...how much more is it getting him there? We've had a lot of close wins this year -- are you willing to lose the three overtime wins we have? The Butler game? For what? A 5% improvement in Hayes? How good would Hayes have to get to risk several of those wins? To make that up, our third string center would have to be, what, 50% better?
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Feb 11, 2015 12:25:00 GMT -5
No, I don't see what is happening in practice. Here is how I look at it. We are going to need a 3rd string center with foul prone centers playing in front of him. Last night is a prime example. Apparently, Hayes is our 3rd team center.What is JT3 doing to ensure he is ready? Just putting him in the game at the time of need is...in my experience...not a strategy for success. I don't think he is anymore. The Bradley Hayes experiment seems over. Assuming you watched the game, III went to the Paul White-Copeland lineup (take your pick who the center is) instead of Hayes in the second half and even activated Trey Mourning as the 3rd center.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 11, 2015 12:26:21 GMT -5
No, I don't see what is happening in practice. Here is how I look at it. We are going to need a 3rd string center with foul prone centers playing in front of him. Last night is a prime example. Apparently, Hayes is our 3rd team center.What is JT3 doing to ensure he is ready? Just putting him in the game at the time of need is...in my experience...not a strategy for success. I don't think he is anymore. The Bradley Hayes experiment seems over. Assuming you watched the game, III went to the Paul White-Copeland lineup (take your pick who the center is) instead of Hayes in the second half and even activated Trey Mourning as the 3rd center. Trey came in during complete garbage time. Copeland played center against a team playing small. I doubt that Mourning or Copeland will be the choice against Bentil or Stainbrook or Ochefu, etc.
|
|
|
Post by michaeldm9 on Feb 11, 2015 12:31:58 GMT -5
The biggest point I am trying to make is, "has he gotten sufficient to establish he is not good for D1 Basketball." I don think he has played over 10 mins in a game. Last year against FSU he played ok. They sky didn't fall because while he was on the court.
Answer me this. Are you telling me that Moses performances was that good while he was here. Moses was a walking foul. No offensive game to speak of. If he got minutes, my grandma deserves minutes.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Feb 11, 2015 12:36:01 GMT -5
I don't think he is anymore. The Bradley Hayes experiment seems over. Assuming you watched the game, III went to the Paul White-Copeland lineup (take your pick who the center is) instead of Hayes in the second half and even activated Trey Mourning as the 3rd center. Trey came in during complete garbage time. Copeland played center against a team playing small. I doubt that Mourning or Copeland will be the choice against Bentil or Stainbrook or Ochefu, etc. Bentil's a forward. 6-8 230 lbs. Even with the size difference I think Copeland matches up better against Bentil than Bradley Hayes. And Mourning seems to have bulked up since the beginning of the season so I think he's a better option in that bad situation (of Hop and Smith in foul trouble) than Hayes. Same with Ochefu. Not an ideal situation to be in but Copeland and Mourning are more serviceable. Hayes is just too slow (especially getting his arms up to play defense or grab boards), and isn't that athletic. He's really not a shot blocker or intimidator and plays soft.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Feb 11, 2015 12:37:58 GMT -5
The biggest point I am trying to make is, "has he gotten sufficient to establish he is not good for D1 Basketball." I don think he has played over 10 mins in a game. Last year against FSU he played ok. They sky didn't fall because while he was on the court. Answer me this. Are you telling me that Moses performances was that good while he was here. Moses was a walking foul. No offensive game to speak of. If he got minutes, my grandma deserves minutes. Moses is alot better than Hayes. So if Moses is about grandma level than Hayes is way below that.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 11, 2015 12:37:53 GMT -5
Trey came in during complete garbage time. Copeland played center against a team playing small. I doubt that Mourning or Copeland will be the choice against Bentil or Stainbrook or Ochefu, etc. Bentil's a forward. 6-8 230 lbs. Even with the size difference I think Copeland matches up better against Bentil than Bradley Hayes. And Mourning seems to have bulked up since the beginning of the season so I think he's a better option in that bad situation (of Hop and Smith in foul trouble) than Hayes. Same with Ochefu. Not an ideal situation to be in but Copeland and Mourning are more serviceable. Hayes is just too slow (especially getting his arms up to play defense or grab boards), and isn't that athletic. He's really not a shot blocker or intimidator and plays soft. I'm not necessarily disagree with who should play. I'm just saying who will play. Nothing from yesterday's game tells me that Bradley's role has changed at all.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,040
|
Post by jwp91 on Feb 11, 2015 12:58:07 GMT -5
No, I don't see what is happening in practice. Here is how I look at it. We are going to need a 3rd string center with foul prone centers playing in front of him. Last night is a prime example. Apparently, Hayes is our 3rd team center. What is JT3 doing to ensure he is ready? Just putting him in the game at the time of need is...in my experience...not a strategy for success. What if the staff has worked with him diligently to help him improve and he's still not very good? I don't what's going on off the court, but what if Broadus is getting up at six to do shuttle work with him and JTIII is teaching him a hook shot and Hopkins is taking extra time to guard him and whatever... and this is still him? Improvement isn't automatic. It isn't guaranteed. I suppose 3-5 minutes of game play couldn't hurt his development, but if they are working 2+ hours every day...how much more is it getting him there? We've had a lot of close wins this year -- are you willing to lose the three overtime wins we have? The Butler game? For what? A 5% improvement in Hayes? How good would Hayes have to get to risk several of those wins? To make that up, our third string center would have to be, what, 50% better? Question for you.... Does JT3 show ANY regard to developing his bench with playing time during blow-outs? The last minute of the game doesn't count.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 11, 2015 13:05:09 GMT -5
What if the staff has worked with him diligently to help him improve and he's still not very good? I don't what's going on off the court, but what if Broadus is getting up at six to do shuttle work with him and JTIII is teaching him a hook shot and Hopkins is taking extra time to guard him and whatever... and this is still him? Improvement isn't automatic. It isn't guaranteed. I suppose 3-5 minutes of game play couldn't hurt his development, but if they are working 2+ hours every day...how much more is it getting him there? We've had a lot of close wins this year -- are you willing to lose the three overtime wins we have? The Butler game? For what? A 5% improvement in Hayes? How good would Hayes have to get to risk several of those wins? To make that up, our third string center would have to be, what, 50% better? Question for you.... Does JT3 show ANY regard to developing his bench with playing time during blow-outs? The last minute of the game doesn't count. No, he doesn't if you are talking about the deep bench -- guys who get little to no time at all. I'd rather he did, but I also don't think it makes that big a difference. Are you going to answer my question?
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Feb 11, 2015 13:07:09 GMT -5
This guy gets way too much attention. It was understood he was a project coming out of high school. Hayes was nearly a 7 footer and yet had no rating by the scouting services and no offers until he was signed in May (which well past the late signing period). So why can't the answer simply be - Hayes cannot play at this level?
He was the definition of gambling on size and it turns out, he is not a D1 prospect, and that is OK. Hayes has gotten a free education for his trouble and our staff has tried to develop him unsuccessfully. This happens all the time, not sure why it is causing such strife with this fan base? (a 21 page thread, I mean really?)
Also, I hate to rain on some folks parade, but Trey Mourning will pass Hayes on the depth chart next season.
|
|