|
Post by bornhoya on Mar 29, 2021 22:49:25 GMT -5
Hey people, Harmon is FAMILY now...he reps the highest rated recruit we gotten in the last 8-10 years....you don't necessarily have to agree with all he says, but suggesting that he be ignored is completely out to lunch...in this instance he is simply saying that these situations often are surrounded by a lot of hype put out by folks with many different agendas, and they shouldn't be viewed as gospel...doesn't mean that the "smoke" around Lykes is necessarily true or false, just that it should be taken with a grain of salt until there's more validation of info...I know he only wants what's best for Georgetown going forward, and I think that should be respected...my 2cts But if Ewing wants Lykes I’ll go with Ewing
|
|
|
Post by hoyacane11 on Mar 31, 2021 9:39:10 GMT -5
With Lykes affirming that he's going to do a 5th year rather than going pro, I've been thinking about the pros and cons of recruiting him to Georgetown. Figured I'd lay out the case both ways... The Case Against Recruiting LykesWe have a good, developing point guard already on the team in Dante Harris. Harris had a stellar Big East tournament and looks like a guy who we can slot in to the starting point guard role for the next 3 years. He and Lykes are too small to play at the same time, so by and large they're going to have to split 40 minutes of point guard minutes per game. That's going to mean stunting Dante's growth, frustrating a 5th year player in Lykes who is trying to boost his pro prospects, or both. Lykes can be a bit of a hog and may not fit with a team concept, especially as he is trying to boost his stock for pro opportunities. We don't currently have any open scholarships (assuming Carey is back), and if any open up they should be used to help us at either the forward or center positions where we have mostly unproven freshmen and sophomores. Aminu Mohammed's guardian has hinted at not being a fan of Lykes' game, so that's another potential chemistry issue to consider especially in light of recent events where it didn't take much to disgruntle a handler and lose a high level player. Lykes is not a good defender, and we have little room to be going backwards in that area. The Case For Recruiting LykesHe's a difference maker. If healthy he's going to give you in the neighborhood of 21 or 22 points per 40 minutes of floor time. He can create for himself and for his teammates, he's the kind of guy who you get the ball to late in the shot clock or late in the game and know he will make a play. Having complimentary players who can fill roles is great, but a team of "glue guys" isn't winning anything in the Big East. Our current roster has a lot of guys who maybe-hopefully-kinda look like they could conceivably be starters eventually, but they aren't alphas. They are role players who could be successful playing off an alpha, but they aren't guys who can take over a game or who are going to be all-conference any time soon. But Lykes is that kind of player. He's nationally relevant and he's a guy opposing coaches have to plan for. Would it cut into Dante's playing time? Of course. But iron sharpens iron, and Dante will get better by playing with Lykes. Dante is going to be here for 4 years. Playing with an elite small guard like Lykes will be good for his long term development, even if he averages less mpg. He will learn a ton and get better as a result of all those practices and learning from a more mature player. It would be similar to the role we thought he was going to play this year under Jalen Harris, except he'd be learning from a better player and he's already a better player himself. Realistically, we need another point guard. Dante's minutes per game the back half of this year were way too many. We need somebody else to help carry the load. Maybe it could be someone like Beard or Berger, but those are near total unknowns and it's possible that neither is a point guard (or that neither is good enough to play regular minutes at the BE level altogether, at least for the time being). Maybe there's an argument that another experienced point guard isn't the TOP need, but it is A need. And the idea that we should recruit an inferior player just because we don't want to rub Dante the wrong way is silly. It assumes a certain mental fragility in him that he really hasn't demonstrated, and the idea of recruiting a worse player just to avoid hurting feelings seems like a loser's mentality. Assuming everyone is committed to team ball, get the best players you can and let them compete. Everyone will be better off for it in the end. Worst case scenario, we have two really good point guards--that's a champagne problem. Plus--brace yourself, blasphemy coming--are we SURE that Dante is everything we've built him up to be in recent weeks? His performance in New York was great and he's a very likable player, no doubt about it. But his overall body of work on the year was a mixed bag. He's quick and he plays hard, but he's got plenty of room for improvement, including minimizing turnovers and especially 3 point shooting (26% on the year on a not-insignificant number of attempts). His 3-12 from the field, 1-6 from 3 performance against Colorado wasn't exactly a total anomaly. He was actually 4-14 from the field and 0-5 from deep against Creighton and 2-10 from from the field, 0-2 from deep against Marquette at MSG. 2-11 from the field, 0-4 from deep against UConn in the regular season finale. Don't get me wrong, he was huge in MSG and will go down in history for it. But there's a reason he didn't even make the All-Freshman team despite having ~35 mpg (after Jalen left) to put up good counting stats. He'll get better and his future is bright, but as much as we like him we have to be objective about what he is right now. If there's an opportunity for us to upgrade and he has to play a supporting role as a sophomore before taking the reigns as a junior, we can't forgo that just because he is a likable kid and had a couple of good games at MSG. On top of all this, Lykes brings a certain buzz that's attractive. He is one of the most exciting local players in the last several years, well-known by just about every fan in the area. Georgetown has struggled to get that kind of buzz under the current administration. We've seen tons of local recruits give us a look but ultimately pass. Adding a guy like Lykes could help change that perception. Does he make a transfer like Timberlake more likely? Does he make a fellow small guard we're recruiting like McDaniel more likely? Or other high end WCAC talent from Gonzaga or elsewhere? There's no guarantee, but it seems like it couldn't hurt. It's an interesting debate. I'm kind of leaning one way on it, but think there's merit on both sides for sure and I don't think there's any wrong answers. EXCELLENT!!! Lykes is a take all day every day! The problem we have here is TALENT or the lack thereof, and you can never have enough talent and depth. You're 100% correct, Harris played way too many minutes this season, and could have used some help with another handler and play maker on the court, as he was the only one. Yes they can also play together, and I'm sure if we were to land him, you would see them getting a lot of minutes together. That duo makes would make us that much better. Please get him Pat!!!
|
|
|
Post by hoyacane11 on Mar 31, 2021 9:42:21 GMT -5
I think it is clear that the Hoyas could use another point guard next year, and preferably one with some college experience. At this point Dante is the only point guard/ball handler with real experience as a D1 point guard on the team. I am hopeful Tyler Beard can serve that role to some degree next year also, but hoping he is ready to step in on day one is risky. Stuff happens in the college game with injuries/foul trouble etc, and having depth at such an important position that you can count on is important. If people can agree the team could use another PG, then I would think you would want to get the best one possible, not just someone who will be happy being a back up. I don't underestimate the importance of team chemistry and making sure the players are comfortable/accepting of their roles, but does it make sense to bring in a marginal player just so you don't hurt someone else ego/feelings? I am not saying Lykes is the only answer but hopefully the staff can find a quality point guard to add to the roster for next year. Now if all the underclassmen from last year that are still on the team stay on the team, then none of this matters because there won't be any scholarships available, but I sense there will be a few more changes before next year starts. Totally agree! We need talent guys, we need talent! You get them here and let Pat work out the chemistry.
|
|
hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by hoopsmccan on Mar 31, 2021 10:05:09 GMT -5
I think it is clear that the Hoyas could use another point guard next year, and preferably one with some college experience. At this point Dante is the only point guard/ball handler with real experience as a D1 point guard on the team. I am hopeful Tyler Beard can serve that role to some degree next year also, but hoping he is ready to step in on day one is risky. Stuff happens in the college game with injuries/foul trouble etc, and having depth at such an important position that you can count on is important. If people can agree the team could use another PG, then I would think you would want to get the best one possible, not just someone who will be happy being a back up. I don't underestimate the importance of team chemistry and making sure the players are comfortable/accepting of their roles, but does it make sense to bring in a marginal player just so you don't hurt someone else ego/feelings? I am not saying Lykes is the only answer but hopefully the staff can find a quality point guard to add to the roster for next year. Now if all the underclassmen from last year that are still on the team stay on the team, then none of this matters because there won't be any scholarships available, but I sense there will be a few more changes before next year starts. Totally agree! We need talent guys, we need talent! You get them here and let Pat work out the chemistry. Hopefully Ewing has learned from recent experiences and does not go down this road. Fit and talent both need to be there. hm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 10:49:59 GMT -5
Hopefully Ewing has learned from recent experiences and does not go down this road. Fit and talent both need to be there. hm Is hm your initials?
|
|
|
Post by hoyacane11 on Mar 31, 2021 14:35:49 GMT -5
Hopefully Ewing has learned from recent experiences and does not go down this road. Fit and talent both need to be there. hm You work out fit and chemistry by playing and practicing together. Talent first, especially here because we don't have much. We don't have the luxury, at this point to do it the other way like the Dukes and UKs of the game. Too many of us think we are, but we're not. Get talent then work It out.
|
|
dense
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,048
|
Post by dense on Mar 31, 2021 14:46:50 GMT -5
Hopefully Ewing has learned from recent experiences and does not go down this road. Fit and talent both need to be there. hm You work out fit and chemistry by playing and practicing together. Talent first, especially here because we don't have much. We don't have the luxury, at this point to do it the other way like the Dukes and UKs of the game. Too many of us think we are, but we're not. Get talent then work It out. You work on it more by discussing what his role will be before he comes.
|
|
|
Post by hoyacane11 on Mar 31, 2021 14:53:11 GMT -5
You work out fit and chemistry by playing and practicing together. Talent first, especially here because we don't have much. We don't have the luxury, at this point to do it the other way like the Dukes and UKs of the game. Too many of us think we are, but we're not. Get talent then work It out. You work on it more by discussing what his role will be before he comes. lol, no sir, you don't work on chemistry by talking. You can discuss roles, but chemistry is played out in practice and games.
|
|
dense
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,048
|
Post by dense on Mar 31, 2021 16:09:40 GMT -5
You work on it more by discussing what his role will be before he comes. lol, no sir, you don't work on chemistry by talking. You can discuss roles, but chemistry is played out in practice and games. Lol no, fit has to be done before he sets foot. Chemistry yes but I was talking about fit. A one year player especially one with pro aspirations won't develop any meaningful chemistry in one year if he is used to being the man on his old team. You have to define the role that he will have now that can change on what the team needs but the fit has to be understood before they even set foot on campus for a 1 year "rental"
|
|
hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by hoopsmccan on Mar 31, 2021 16:27:51 GMT -5
Hopefully Ewing has learned from recent experiences and does not go down this road. Fit and talent both need to be there. hm You work out fit and chemistry by playing and practicing together. Talent first, especially here because we don't have much. We don't have the luxury, at this point to do it the other way like the Dukes and UKs of the game. Too many of us think we are, but we're not. Get talent then work It out. Roster construction - that includes bringing in talent and fit - is a key part of a college coach's job. Without the fit part (including buy-in on roles, which should be discussed), the team will likely be dysfunctional and you'll have transfers (that was true even before the current wild west transfer portal). It is really odd that you bring up Duke and UK because I'm advocating for the opposite of their approach...their roster construction is all about talent and consists of bringing in whatever 5 stars they entice, appropriately or otherwise, to enroll. You are right - we can't play that game and, my point, is that we shouldn't try on a JV level. hm
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 31, 2021 16:31:51 GMT -5
You work out fit and chemistry by playing and practicing together. Talent first, especially here because we don't have much. We don't have the luxury, at this point to do it the other way like the Dukes and UKs of the game. Too many of us think we are, but we're not. Get talent then work It out. Roster construction - that includes bringing in talent and fit - is a key part of a college coach's job. Without the fit part (including buy-in on roles, which should be discussed), the team will likely be dysfunctional and you'll have transfers (that was true even before the current wild west transfer portal). It is really odd that you bring up Duke and UK because I'm advocating for the opposite of their approach...their roster construction is all about talent and consists of bringing in whatever 5 stars they entice, appropriately or otherwise, to enroll. You are right - we can't play that game and, my point, is that we shouldn't try on a JV level. hm Worth noting that during Gonzaga's game yesterday, they specifically mentioned Few asking his players if they felt Nembhard would be a good fit for the team before adding him. No doubting Nembhard's talent, but that upfront communication and building of trust is what ultimately leads to buy-in.
|
|
dense
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,048
|
Post by dense on Mar 31, 2021 16:43:04 GMT -5
Roster construction - that includes bringing in talent and fit - is a key part of a college coach's job. Without the fit part (including buy-in on roles, which should be discussed), the team will likely be dysfunctional and you'll have transfers (that was true even before the current wild west transfer portal). It is really odd that you bring up Duke and UK because I'm advocating for the opposite of their approach...their roster construction is all about talent and consists of bringing in whatever 5 stars they entice, appropriately or otherwise, to enroll. You are right - we can't play that game and, my point, is that we shouldn't try on a JV level. hm Worth noting that during Gonzaga's game yesterday, they specifically mentioned Few asking his players if they felt Nembhard would be a good fit for the team before adding him. No doubting Nembhard's talent, but that upfront communication and building of trust is what ultimately leads to buy-in. Exactly. This is what I mean. You have to get the input of everyone and also the player.
|
|
RBHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,143
|
Post by RBHoya on Mar 31, 2021 17:15:18 GMT -5
Roster construction - that includes bringing in talent and fit - is a key part of a college coach's job. Without the fit part (including buy-in on roles, which should be discussed), the team will likely be dysfunctional and you'll have transfers (that was true even before the current wild west transfer portal). It is really odd that you bring up Duke and UK because I'm advocating for the opposite of their approach...their roster construction is all about talent and consists of bringing in whatever 5 stars they entice, appropriately or otherwise, to enroll. You are right - we can't play that game and, my point, is that we shouldn't try on a JV level. hm Worth noting that during Gonzaga's game yesterday, they specifically mentioned Few asking his players if they felt Nembhard would be a good fit for the team before adding him. No doubting Nembhard's talent, but that upfront communication and building of trust is what ultimately leads to buy-in. I think this is a savvy way to handle that kind of situation. If your boss came to you and said "We're thinking of hiring another employee at the same level as you. You haven't done anything wrong, but we think this other person is extremely talented and could help our company. Are you ok with that?" How would you respond? To me it feels like, even if I had some misgivings that the new hire might inhibit my ability to get a promotion or something, I'd NEVER admit it. It would seem like such cowardice to say "No, I'm not ok with us adding another really good player." It feels like almost instinctively a person would say "Sure, no problem with me--I want what's best for the team and I'm confident that I'm good enough to play a major role even with the new addition." I imagine if I was a cocky college aged basketball player I'd be even more loathe to ever admit any kind of insecurity. Can you imagine looking your coach in the face and saying "I'm not ok with it, I care more about my own playing time and "brand" than about what's best for the team"? Even if that's true, I don't think anyone would ever say it. You almost have to give the "right" answer when asked. And then if you actually are upset down the line, it dissuades you from pouting about it because you know you "signed off" on the new transfer. Of course, it helps that a team like Gonzaga is steamrolling everyone in their path--winning is the best deodorant. If the same situation happened on a bubble team, the hurt feelings and acrimony are a lot more likely to come to the surface. Guys are still likely to bail even if they said they were ok with bringing in a transfer. But it feels like a good gesture. Sends a message to the current players that the coach cares about their input, compels the players to buy in to the team concept, and hopefully at minimum makes them think twice before pouting/whining/bailing if the going gets tough down the line. It doesn't fix everything, but can't hurt.
|
|
s4hoyas
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,475
|
Post by s4hoyas on Mar 31, 2021 18:16:23 GMT -5
It seems to me that the first order of business is to determine who's staying and who's going...from that, determine what the position(s) of greatest need remains...and then how many scholarships are available...to me, if neither Pickett or Bile return, the greatest need is for an IMPACT P/F...6'7 (min.) to 6'10 who can score inside and from the perimeter, is a good to very good rebounder and defender...probably a grad/transfer player...if there's only one slot available, that's where we should go...if there are two (or more) what is the next most important position of need...if its P/G, then is Lykes the guy and is he interested and a good fit, or might it be somebody else, possibly with better size and/or a better fit...or, if there is another player who's an impact guy who can help immediately (say a S/F who's a big time athlete who's an excellent 3 point shooter and a plus defender)...would he be a greater need and we go with Beard as the backup P/G in the event there are only two openings...in any case, we don't need to simply add depth guys...we need to "cherry pick" and upgrade the talent in the process...
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,649
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Mar 31, 2021 18:51:56 GMT -5
You don’t turn away talent because you’re afraid of chemistry. Kids get injured and transfer. You need to load up every year. If it doesn’t work out, you reload the following year. College hoops is now pickup basketball. Recruit accordingly.
|
|
IDenj
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,531
|
Post by IDenj on Mar 31, 2021 19:26:26 GMT -5
Could you please just update the thread title when he decides svp?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,547
Member is Online
|
Post by tashoya on Mar 31, 2021 20:14:40 GMT -5
I'm in the camp that you take Lykes if he wants to come. He and Dante facing off in practices would, likely, be GREAT for both of them.
|
|
|
Post by hoyacane11 on Apr 1, 2021 8:33:59 GMT -5
lol, no sir, you don't work on chemistry by talking. You can discuss roles, but chemistry is played out in practice and games. Lol no, fit has to be done before he sets foot. Chemistry yes but I was talking about fit. A one year player especially one with pro aspirations won't develop any meaningful chemistry in one year if he is used to being the man on his old team. You have to define the role that he will have now that can change on what the team needs but the fit has to be understood before they even set foot on campus for a 1 year "rental" Way to move the goalpost from chemistry to fit. lol Yes fit can be discussed. Chemistry must be played out in the lab.
|
|
|
Post by hoyacane11 on Apr 1, 2021 8:38:07 GMT -5
You don’t turn away talent because you’re afraid of chemistry. Kids get injured and transfer. You need to load up every year. If it doesn’t work out, you reload the following year. College hoops is now pickup basketball. Recruit accordingly. Right, we Georgetown, are not in the position to be turning away talent worrying about chemistry, not close. If this was a deep talented team, I'll be on board with that, but we're far from being elite. When was the last time we even made the tournament 3 years in a row? Some of these dudes think we're Nova or something, it's comical.
Load up on quality talent and work out the rest. Spare me the Gonzaga quotes please. They can afford to operate that way. We can't.
|
|
|
Post by hoyacane11 on Apr 1, 2021 8:40:13 GMT -5
Worth noting that during Gonzaga's game yesterday, they specifically mentioned Few asking his players if they felt Nembhard would be a good fit for the team before adding him. No doubting Nembhard's talent, but that upfront communication and building of trust is what ultimately leads to buy-in. Exactly. This is what I mean. You have to get the input of everyone and also the player. And we're on par with Gonzaga right? Gotcha They can afford to do that, they're a fixture in the elite 8, final 4. We can't even make the tournament consistently, terrible comparison.
If Lykes wants in, he's a take all day every day.
|
|