EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,853
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 11, 2015 16:56:54 GMT -5
How do you figure that? Again Smith has proven twice that he can come off the bench and positively affect a game, Hopkins hasn't... Plus this team could use some offensive fire power off the bench.. As JohnnySnowplow pointed out Gardner from Marquette was arguably their best player and he always came off the bench.. What's the difference? The difference is we should only play Hopkins because we have to. If Smith can play 30, he should play 30. Starting with five minutes of suck isn't a great strategy in any sense. I get what you're saying but we all have to realize that Hopkins is going to play and it's highly doubtful that Smith will ever play 30 minutes in any game this season.. The most he's played so far this year is 27.. Who knows maybe not starting Josh will give DSR the urge to be more aggressive/assertive to start the game.. As I've said a few times already we have witnessed it work in the 2nd halves of games..
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 11, 2015 16:59:25 GMT -5
The difference is we should only play Hopkins because we have to. If Smith can play 30, he should play 30. Starting with five minutes of suck isn't a great strategy in any sense. I get what you're saying but we all have to realize that Hopkins is going to play and it's highly doubtful that Smith will ever play 30 minutes in any game this season.. The most he's played so far this year is 27.. Who knows maybe not starting Josh will give DSR the urge to be more aggressive/assertive to start the game.. As I've said a few times already we have witnessed it work in the 2nd halves of games.. Good point. At this pont I'm hoping that DSR has just been saving his aggressiveness for February or March. We shall see how that plays out, but he should be more aggressive regardless of who's on the court with him. 9/10 he's the best scorer on the floor with the most advanced skill set but he has not really acted like if.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,766
|
Post by njhoya78 on Jan 11, 2015 17:02:54 GMT -5
Well, if having firepower to come off of the bench is what you are looking for, why not have DSR not start and instead come off the bench? Really NJ? Ok, I'll play.. I'd continue to start DSR because he plays well with any other guard, forward or center on the team.. Smith & Hopkins do not play well together.. Do you disagree the team could use an offensive punch off the bench? Etomic. . .that is known as sarcasm. Sorry if you thought I was serious. DSR has to start. He also has to start playing like the leader we believe he is. You are correct in that Smith and Hopkins do not play well together, and the team clearly struggles when the two of them are on the court at the same time. We clearly disagree about whether Hopkins or Smith should start.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,853
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 11, 2015 17:04:42 GMT -5
Really NJ? Ok, I'll play.. I'd continue to start DSR because he plays well with any other guard, forward or center on the team.. Smith & Hopkins do not play well together.. Do you disagree the team could use an offensive punch off the bench? Yeah, but that's what Paul White and Bowen and them are for. Josh is limited in his rotation more by his fouling at this point. I see what you're trying to say, but we can't really afford to start games with 5 players who are each unwilling to take shots or impose their offensive will. The problem has been with us starting slowly. Bowen isn't an offensive player and neither is White but I was happy with how aggressive he was yesterday... Since the starting line-up has been the same all season none of us can say for sure what's causing the slow starts right? So again why not go with something that has worked in games this season?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,853
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 11, 2015 17:07:48 GMT -5
Really NJ? Ok, I'll play.. I'd continue to start DSR because he plays well with any other guard, forward or center on the team.. Smith & Hopkins do not play well together.. Do you disagree the team could use an offensive punch off the bench? Etomic. . .that is known as sarcasm. Sorry if you thought I was serious. DSR has to start. He also has to start playing like the leader we believe he is. You are correct in that Smith and Hopkins do not play well together, and the team clearly struggles when the two of them are on the court at the same time. We clearly disagree about whether Hopkins or Smith should start. My bad NJ.. I'm still recovering from the screaming PC fans behind me at the end of yesterday's game so my senses have been dulled
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,766
|
Post by njhoya78 on Jan 11, 2015 17:08:56 GMT -5
Etomic. . .that is known as sarcasm. Sorry if you thought I was serious. DSR has to start. He also has to start playing like the leader we believe he is. You are correct in that Smith and Hopkins do not play well together, and the team clearly struggles when the two of them are on the court at the same time. We clearly disagree about whether Hopkins or Smith should start. My bad NJ.. I'm still recovering from the screaming PC fans behind me at the end of yesterday's game so my senses have been dulled No problem. I knew as soon as I posted it that I ran the risk of misinterpretation. Should have closed it with an emoticon. Like this.
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,746
|
Post by blueandgray on Jan 11, 2015 17:09:26 GMT -5
Etomic. . .that is known as sarcasm. Sorry if you thought I was serious. DSR has to start. He also has to start playing like the leader we believe he is. You are correct in that Smith and Hopkins do not play well together, and the team clearly struggles when the two of them are on the court at the same time. We clearly disagree about whether Hopkins or Smith should start. My bad NJ.. I'm still recovering from the screaming PC fans behind me at the end of yesterday's game so my senses have been dulled Don't be surprised if Paul White is starting over Hopkins next game.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 11, 2015 17:15:32 GMT -5
The difference is we should only play Hopkins because we have to. If Smith can play 30, he should play 30. Starting with five minutes of suck isn't a great strategy in any sense. I get what you're saying but we all have to realize that Hopkins is going to play and it's highly doubtful that Smith will ever play 30 minutes in any game this season.. The most he's played so far this year is 27.. Who knows maybe not starting Josh will give DSR the urge to be more aggressive/assertive to start the game.. As I've said a few times already we have witnessed it work in the 2nd halves of games.. I have no idea why the starting point is Hopkins starting. We've seen benching Hopkins work in the second half of games work as well. Put in Paul White to start over Hopkins. We'll actually be leading a game or two at the 5 minute mark. I know it's new and scary, but it'll happen. It's like people are reaching just to protect Hopkins and his apparently incredibly fragile psyche. Seriously, at some point I have to wonder if Hopkins is paying people to support his play.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,351
|
Post by calhoya on Jan 11, 2015 17:31:08 GMT -5
I am advocate for Smith and Hopkins to share the 5 for most of the game. Hopkins was bad yesterday, but I don't think the problem is motivation. In fact Hopkins was trying too hard and this just left him frustrated and committing a dumb foul. The kid needs to calm down.
From what I read several posters here played and/ or coached at some level. I never coached in college but I coached for 14 years at the high school and AAU level with some very smart coaches. Anyone who has coached has seen kids lose confidence and get frustrated. The solution is generally not to beat them up verbally. If a kid has nothing to offer, you sit them. If they have skills and can contribute then you work to rebuild their confidence and help them calm down. The coach has to be alert for meltdowns during the game and get the kid out before it goes too far, even if you go with an unconventional lineup with a Copeland at the 5 for a couple of minutes. However, those calling for Hopkins to be benched completely are reacting emotionally to yesterday. It is not unfair to recognize that as maddening as Hopkins has been on offense, he has been pretty good on defense.
I do not mind giving Hayes a few minutes each game, but it should have started long ago in the preseason. For now Hayes is stopgap at best, but horrible on the boards. Part of his problem on the boards is that despite his size he does not box out and quicker players are able to get engaged under the boards and deflect or knock loose balls he should get. His defense is not horrible simply because of his size but he does not have quick feet and he is slow to rotate-- due in part to his lack of game experience. No one can reasonably argue that Hayes is close to Hopkins on defense. So if the goal is next year, sit Hopkins but if the goal is still this year the coaches have to figure a way to use him without putting him in self-destruct mode like yesterday.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 11, 2015 17:48:16 GMT -5
Yeah, but that's what Paul White and Bowen and them are for. Josh is limited in his rotation more by his fouling at this point. I see what you're trying to say, but we can't really afford to start games with 5 players who are each unwilling to take shots or impose their offensive will. The problem has been with us starting slowly. Bowen isn't an offensive player and neither is White but I was happy with how aggressive he was yesterday... Since the starting line-up has been the same all season none of us can say for sure what's causing the slow starts right? So again why not go with something that has worked in games this season? Yeah neither are, but both fill that role and both have shown an ability to either score in bunches or at least when the rest of the offense is stagnant. Paul is actually like our third "best" or aggressive offensive player. Certainly the third most skilled, so he really needs to carry that aggressiveness through the rest of the season. Your premise makes some sense, but I think it may be fairly obvious that Josh isn't the reason for our slow starts, he's often the one to get us going when we come out sluggish. I'd be curious to see his stats before the first TV timeout, he is usually the one leading the team. And I think III has experimented a but with who he brings out, the starters don't always start the second half. Most often when Josh comes off of the bench in the second half he does provide a spark, but I think that's more a product of the fact that he's just that good. I think starting him and playing him till he gets in foul trouble and then starting the second half with a different lineup if other players are playing well is as close as a compromise as you can get. The only thing that stops Josh is himself and triple teams...I'd say he's a pretty valuable offensive commodity who's utility might lessen if we wait to begin usin him. I mean, you have to consider he spacing he offers in the first few minutes before an opposing team's defensive identity is set and then you have to consider who starts in his place and whether or not they offer as much on offense and rebounding.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 11, 2015 17:49:37 GMT -5
How do you figure that? Again Smith has proven twice that he can come off the bench and positively affect a game, Hopkins hasn't... Plus this team could use some offensive fire power off the bench.. As JohnnySnowplow pointed out Gardner from Marquette was arguably their best player and he always came off the bench.. What's the difference? I figure that because he's played much better in smaller lineups than he has alongside Smith for the most part. That's not really debatable. And the Gardner situation was different. Josh is our most aggressive offensive player at this point and Gardner had Vander Blue to rely on, plus his supportin cast was much more trigger confident. But the bottom line is they are two completely different teams and who cares what Marquette did? What exactly do they have to show for that strategy? How about a sweet 16 in 2013? That's something to show for it. I'm not saying I give one iota of a crap about Marquette or Gardner, I'm just saying there are parallels to be drawn. Just because someone is a top offensive option doesn't mean they need to start.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 11, 2015 17:50:48 GMT -5
Bowen isn't an offensive player and neither is White but I was happy with how aggressive he was yesterday... Since the starting line-up has been the same all season none of us can say for sure what's causing the slow starts right? So again why not go with something that has worked in games this season? Yeah neither are, but both fill that role and both have shown an ability to either score in bunches or at least when the rest of the offense is stagnant. Paul is actually like our third "best" or aggressive offensive player. Certainly the third most skilled, so he really needs to carry that aggressiveness through the rest of the season. Your premise makes some sense, but I think it may be fairly obvious that Josh isn't the reason for our slow starts, he's often the one to get us going when we come out sluggish. I'd be curious to see his stats before the first TV timeout, he is usually the one leading the team. And I think III has experimented a but with who he brings out, the starters don't always start the second half. Most often when Josh comes off of the bench in the second half he does provide a spark, but I think that's more a product of the fact that he's just that good. I think starting him and playing him till he gets in foul trouble and then starting the second half with a different lineup if other players are playing well is as close as a compromise as you can get. The only thing that stops Josh is himself and triple teams...I'd say he's a pretty valuable offensive commodity who's utility might lessen if we wait to begin usin him. I mean, you have to consider he spacing he offers in the first few minutes before an opposing team's defensive identity is set and then you have to consider who starts in his place and whether or not they offer as much on offense and rebounding. These stats are posted earlier in the thread. Try reading all the info before opining on a subject.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 11, 2015 17:51:14 GMT -5
I am advocate for Smith and Hopkins to share the 5 for most of the game. Hopkins was bad yesterday, but I don't think the problem is motivation. In fact Hopkins was trying too hard and this just left him frustrated and committing a dumb foul. The kid needs to calm down. From what I read several posters here played and/ or coached at some level. I never coached in college but I coached for 14 years at the high school and AAU level with some very smart coaches. Anyone who has coached has seen kids lose confidence and get frustrated. The solution is generally not to beat them up verbally. If a kid has nothing to offer, you sit them. If they have skills and can contribute then you work to rebuild their confidence and help them calm down. The coach has to be alert for meltdowns during the game and get the kid out before it goes too far, even if you go with an unconventional lineup with a Copeland at the 5 for a couple of minutes. However, those calling for Hopkins to be benched completely are reacting emotionally to yesterday. It is not unfair to recognize that as maddening as Hopkins has been on offense, he has been pretty good on defense. I do not mind giving Hayes a few minutes each game, but it should have started long ago in the preseason. For now Hayes is stopgap at best, but horrible on the boards. Part of his problem on the boards is that despite his size he does not box out and quicker players are able to get engaged under the boards and deflect or knock loose balls he should get. His defense is not horrible simply because of his size but he does not have quick feet and he is slow to rotate-- due in part to his lack of game experience. No one can reasonably argue that Hayes is close to Hopkins on defense. So if the goal is next year, sit Hopkins but if the goal is still this year the coaches have to figure a way to use him without putting him in self-destruct mode like yesterday. +1
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 11, 2015 17:56:00 GMT -5
Nowhere did I say I want Smith to get less time or Hopkins to get more time. Nor did I advocate distributing minutes based on seniority. And I actually specifically stated I'm trying to avoid Hayes having to play. The suggestion was merely that changing the starting lineup might help us come out a little quicker and not dig holes in the first 4 minutes. And maybe help us keep our big guys out of early foul trouble. Don't think it's nearly as ridiculous as you're making it out to be. You want to start Smith instead of Hopkins? Fine, I don't care. I don't like Hopkins either. Clearly he's only in the starting lineup now because he's a senior. There can't possibly be any other reason, right? So working under that premise, I merely suggested a way to keep him in there and still shake things up. Davante Gardner was easily one of Marquette's two best players the last couple years and he came off the bench but still played starter's minutes. He was a great offensive talent and a liability defensively. There's a lot of similarities to Smith. But by all means, let's keep doing the same thing that isn't working. At this point, we simply need to minimize Hopkins' minutes. He got outplayed by Hayes against Providence, of all things. I agree with you there's no reason to ever play Hopkins and Smith together, but at this point I'd even given Hayes some of Hopkins' minutes. I can't stand the idea of Hopkins starting over Smith for a variety of reasons, but one big one is that we always try to throw it in early. That'll be 2-3 turnovers quickly to put us behind the 8 ball again. Part of my reasoning was that, as you say we always try to throw it in early, and as pr pointed out that strategy really hasn't worked as we've been down early in most games. So change the strategy, bring Smith off the bench, and try playing through PW and DSR to start to game.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 11, 2015 18:00:23 GMT -5
I figure that because he's played much better in smaller lineups than he has alongside Smith for the most part. That's not really debatable. And the Gardner situation was different. Josh is our most aggressive offensive player at this point and Gardner had Vander Blue to rely on, plus his supportin cast was much more trigger confident. But the bottom line is they are two completely different teams and who cares what Marquette did? What exactly do they have to show for that strategy? How about a sweet 16 in 2013? That's something to show for it. I'm not saying I give one iota of a crap about Marquette or Gardner, I'm just saying there are parallels to be drawn. Just because someone is a top offensive option doesn't mean they need to start. Fair, but you think they wouldn't have made it if he was starting? Also, by that logic there are parallels to be drawn from other teams where they decided to start their best two players and have had success. Would we be having this discussion if Gardner wasn't overweight at some point? Bottom line is that Marquette team was more balanced than this team and I don't think bringing Gardner off the bench was necessarily the difference maker for them. I would agree with an argument for Josh coming off the bench as to preserve his fouls and have him end games with longer stretches of play, but at this point he's been by far the most consistent player for us to start games.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 11, 2015 18:05:03 GMT -5
Yeah neither are, but both fill that role and both have shown an ability to either score in bunches or at least when the rest of the offense is stagnant. Paul is actually like our third "best" or aggressive offensive player. Certainly the third most skilled, so he really needs to carry that aggressiveness through the rest of the season. Your premise makes some sense, but I think it may be fairly obvious that Josh isn't the reason for our slow starts, he's often the one to get us going when we come out sluggish. I'd be curious to see his stats before the first TV timeout, he is usually the one leading the team. And I think III has experimented a but with who he brings out, the starters don't always start the second half. Most often when Josh comes off of the bench in the second half he does provide a spark, but I think that's more a product of the fact that he's just that good. I think starting him and playing him till he gets in foul trouble and then starting the second half with a different lineup if other players are playing well is as close as a compromise as you can get. The only thing that stops Josh is himself and triple teams...I'd say he's a pretty valuable offensive commodity who's utility might lessen if we wait to begin usin him. I mean, you have to consider he spacing he offers in the first few minutes before an opposing team's defensive identity is set and then you have to consider who starts in his place and whether or not they offer as much on offense and rebounding. These stats are posted earlier in the thread. Try reading all the info before opining on a subject. Okay, well regardless of what those stats are they still don't disprove my discussion points and they don't prove yours, so does it really matter to the accuracy of my opinion? In this case not really. Plainly put I don't have time to reread every post of every thread and if those are the requirements for posting then I might as well stop posting now. You win the debate by virtue of responding to the one part of my post that doesn't really matter and taking issue with the fact that it doesn't provide empirical evidence for my, otherwise true, claim, congrats (sarcasm).
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 11, 2015 18:11:23 GMT -5
How about a sweet 16 in 2013? That's something to show for it. I'm not saying I give one iota of a crap about Marquette or Gardner, I'm just saying there are parallels to be drawn. Just because someone is a top offensive option doesn't mean they need to start. Fair, but you think they wouldn't have made it if he was starting? Also, by that logic there are parallels to be drawn from other teams where they decided to start their best two players and have had success. Would we be having this discussion if Gardner wasn't overweight at some point? Bottom line is that Marquette team was more balanced than this team and I don't think bringing Gardner off the bench was necessarily the difference maker for them. I would agree with an argument for Josh coming off the bench as to preserve his fouls and have him end games with longer stretches of play, but at this point he's been by far the most consistent player for us to start games. Omygod, so many things wrong with this post. I'm not even sure where to start. By your logic here, then no comparison is ever worth making ever, which is patently absurd. Would anyone ever argue that there AREN'T teams that have success by starting their two best players? What point are you even trying to make? I don't even know. Yes Gardner was also fat. He was also a poor defender because of it, just like Smith. It's an apt comparison, whether you can wrap your brain around that or not. If you actually go back and read the stats that were posted as I suggested earlier, you'd see he isn't necessarily any better offensively than anyone else on the team before the first TV timeout. The bottom line is that our early game strategy isn't working, because we almost never have a lead by the first timeout. The point I'M trying to make is that bringing Gardner off the bench was successful in adding some offense outside the starting lineup and limiting his exposure to early foul trouble. It worked for them. By no means does that mean it will work for us, but what we're doing to start the game isn't working, so why not try something new?
|
|
|
Post by paulioz7 on Jan 11, 2015 18:12:14 GMT -5
Under no circumstances do you start Hopkins Bowen and Trawick. They should not play together for any more than a couple of minutes if at all. That starting 5 would have no offensive ability and would be very easy to defend. The opposition would beg Bowen, Hopkins and Trawick to shoot. That's too many offensively challenged players at once.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 11, 2015 18:24:28 GMT -5
Under no circumstances do you start Hopkins Bowen and Trawick. They should not play together for any more than a couple of minutes if at all. That starting 5 would have no offensive ability and would be very easy to defend. The opposition would beg Bowen, Hopkins and Trawick to shoot. That's too many offensively challenged players at once. Jabril is 30-52 from 2 and 11-25 from 3. For his career he shoots 55% from 2 and has steadily improved his outside shooting over his 4 years. His eFG% is over 60%. The notion that he is a liability on offense is way overblown. He plays out of control from time to time, but he is not a liability. Starting Bowen over Peak might be a little reckless on my part, I'll admit that. But does LJ Peak really force other teams to respect his outside game any more than Bowen? Has he made a shot from more than 5 feet out all season? He's a terrible outside shooter right now and frankly I don't really see how he brings that much more than Bowen at this point in his career.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,853
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 11, 2015 18:31:21 GMT -5
I get what you're saying but we all have to realize that Hopkins is going to play and it's highly doubtful that Smith will ever play 30 minutes in any game this season.. The most he's played so far this year is 27.. Who knows maybe not starting Josh will give DSR the urge to be more aggressive/assertive to start the game.. As I've said a few times already we have witnessed it work in the 2nd halves of games.. I have no idea why the starting point is Hopkins starting. We've seen benching Hopkins work in the second half of games work as well. Put in Paul White to start over Hopkins. We'll actually be leading a game or two at the 5 minute mark. I know it's new and scary, but it'll happen. It's like people are reaching just to protect Hopkins and his apparently incredibly fragile psyche. Seriously, at some point I have to wonder if Hopkins is paying people to support his play. Please don't take my thoughts on Smith coming off the bench as being pro Hopkins in anyway cause that couldn't be further from the truth.. I realize Hopkins is not a good player and I agree with you that folks overrate his defensive contributions to the team.. I have no problems with White starting over him, I'm just trying to think outside the box
|
|