SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 12, 2014 12:02:22 GMT -5
...but a few things have to change, and I don't know if the team is going to get there.
The reason this team can be really, really good are obvious: when they are on, the team can score in a variety of ways. We have a low post presence and a legitimate driving threat. We have a fast break offense and have been hitting the offensive boards. We still get a few backcuts, so when the outside shooting is on, the Hoyas can be hard to stop.
On defense, it's apparent as well -- the team is longer and quicker than in years past, even if its young. There are times when the defense is absolutely suffocating.
But the reasons why the team won't get there are just as apparent at times. Inconsistent outside shooting, turnovers, poor defensive rebounding, continuing foul issues, poor rotations on shooters on d. Here's a basic three point plan:
1. Design plays to get DSR shots early. DSR is not the one-dimensional player that many made him out to be. He can pass, he can opportunistically drive. But he's not a guy you can line up 1 on 1 and expect him to take the guy off the dribble on demand. The Hoyas have had few (none?) of those players under III, although LJ Peak looks like he may be the first one.
I don't mind DSR being the "point guard" in the offense in the sense of bringing the ball up, but he's being too passive early. He needs to be opportunistic in his shots; not leave them all for late in the shot clock or game. He's a shooter -- shoot. It's certainly a better option than watching Jabril try to take someone off the dribble or Hopkins do anything on offense.
To that end, we should be running some plays early to get DSR some shots. And he should take them. Screens, picks. Triangle-like setup with Peak, Smith and him where the end in mind is an open shot by DSR. Getting him into a rhythm will pay off later.
2. Wait for the freshmen to shore up their weaknesses. Okay, this one is a "wait" for us, but obviously for the staff, it involves a lot of teaching. But right now, the freshmen are weak in two of our key areas: rebounding and defensive rotations. Neither Paul White nor Isaac Copeland are rebounding well. And while White has been strong on D, no one can doubt that Peak has had trouble dealing with managing both a perimeter shooting on dropping down to help on the post (although he's not the only one here, Jabril).
But the defensive rotations will improve. We're just a few games in. And the talent is undeniable -- Peak brings something no other player does; White might already be the third best player on the team and Copeland has larger upside than either of them.
3. Start minimizing time and opportunities on the weaknesses that won't improve.
Worst TO Rates on the Team:
32.8% Hopkins 25.7% Trawick 24.6% Bowen 23.5% Smith 23.2% Peak
Every other player is under 20%, except Reggie Cameron at 21%. Four of those five players are seniors. The top three continually make decisions to push offense that are beyond their skill set. The top one has the worst shooting percentage on the team, so even when a shot does go up...
Worst Fouls Committed/40 on the Team:
5.9 Hopkins 5.8 Smith 5.1 Trawick 4.0 Bowen
Everyone else is at a 3.1 or lower. In other words, our foul issues -- the reason why last year's defense collapsed; why we are 233rd in defensive foul rate this year, is essentially on the senior class again.
These players have a role -- some of them a big one. Smith and Hopkins are our centers. Both are the only strong rebounders on the team (well, DSR is a strong rebounder for a guard). Smith brings a dimension to the offense we desperately need. Hopkins, when he's not over-committing and not fouling, is a strong defender. I love the spark Bowen can provide.
But they aren't going to get better at their weaknesses. Trawick isn't going to become a plus dribble-drive guy; Hopkins isn't going to learn offense. Smith is still going to turnover the ball a ton and Bowen is still at his best finishing (actually, I do wonder if Bowen should be getting more time).
And so, in whatever way possible, their weaknesses need to be hidden. When Jon Wallace couldn't defend an opposing point guard one on one, we hid it with team defense and having him lay off non-shooters. When the team two years ago really had no offense, we just funneled the ball to Otto. Adjustments need to be made.
Either players like Trawick and Hopkins needs to limit their choices to finishing what others start, or minutes need to shift. Players need to make small decisions better -- that's ideal. But if they can't, then we need to see if Isaac Copeland can do it better.
Overall, it doesn't seem like that much. I can completely see it coming together. But it hasn't so far, and watching the Kansas game... we should be a significantly better team and aren't there yet. I hope they get there.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Dec 12, 2014 12:14:42 GMT -5
Great post SF. Also need everyone to get up at 6am and shoot free throws!
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 12, 2014 12:43:06 GMT -5
...but a few things have to change, and I don't know if the team is going to get there. The reason this team can be really, really good are obvious: when they are on, the team can score in a variety of ways. We have a low post presence and a legitimate driving threat. We have a fast break offense and have been hitting the offensive boards. We still get a few backcuts, so when the outside shooting is on, the Hoyas can be hard to stop. On defense, it's apparent as well -- the team is longer and quicker than in years past, even if its young. There are times when the defense is absolutely suffocating. But the reasons why the team won't get there are just as apparent at times. Inconsistent outside shooting, turnovers, poor defensive rebounding, continuing foul issues, poor rotations on shooters on d. Here's a basic three point plan: 1. Design plays to get DSR shots early. DSR is not the one-dimensional player that many made him out to be. He can pass, he can opportunistically drive. But he's not a guy you can line up 1 on 1 and expect him to take the guy off the dribble on demand. The Hoyas have had few (none?) of those players under III, although LJ Peak looks like he may be the first one. I don't mind DSR being the "point guard" in the offense in the sense of bringing the ball up, but he's being too passive early. He needs to be opportunistic in his shots; not leave them all for late in the shot clock or game. He's a shooter -- shoot. It's certainly a better option than watching Jabril try to take someone off the dribble or Hopkins do anything on offense. To that end, we should be running some plays early to get DSR some shots. And he should take them. Screens, picks. Triangle-like setup with Peak, Smith and him where the end in mind is an open shot by DSR. Getting him into a rhythm will pay off later. 2. Wait for the freshmen to shore up their weaknesses. Okay, this one is a "wait" for us, but obviously for the staff, it involves a lot of teaching. But right now, the freshmen are weak in two of our key areas: rebounding and defensive rotations. Neither Paul White nor Isaac Copeland are rebounding well. And while White has been strong on D, no one can doubt that Peak has had trouble dealing with managing both a perimeter shooting on dropping down to help on the post (although he's not the only one here, Jabril). But the defensive rotations will improve. We're just a few games in. And the talent is undeniable -- Peak brings something no other player does; White might already be the third best player on the team and Copeland has larger upside than either of them. 3. Start minimizing time and opportunities on the weaknesses that won't improve. Worst TO Rates on the Team:32.8% Hopkins 25.7% Trawick 24.6% Bowen 23.5% Smith 23.2% Peak Every other player is under 20%, except Reggie Cameron at 21%. Four of those five players are seniors. The top three continually make decisions to push offense that are beyond their skill set. The top one has the worst shooting percentage on the team, so even when a shot does go up... Worst Fouls Committed/40 on the Team:5.9 Hopkins 5.8 Smith 5.1 Trawick 4.0 Bowen Everyone else is at a 3.1 or lower. In other words, our foul issues -- the reason why last year's defense collapsed; why we are 233rd in defensive foul rate this year, is essentially on the senior class again. These players have a role -- some of them a big one. Smith and Hopkins are our centers. Both are the only strong rebounders on the team (well, DSR is a strong rebounder for a guard). Smith brings a dimension to the offense we desperately need. Hopkins, when he's not over-committing and not fouling, is a strong defender. I love the spark Bowen can provide. But they aren't going to get better at their weaknesses. Trawick isn't going to become a plus dribble-drive guy; Hopkins isn't going to learn offense. Smith is still going to turnover the ball a ton and Bowen is still at his best finishing (actually, I do wonder if Bowen should be getting more time). And so, in whatever way possible, their weaknesses need to be hidden. When Jon Wallace couldn't defend an opposing point guard one on one, we hid it with team defense and having him lay off non-shooters. When the team two years ago really had no offense, we just funneled the ball to Otto. Adjustments need to be made. Either players like Trawick and Hopkins needs to limit their choices to finishing what others start, or minutes need to shift. Players need to make small decisions better -- that's ideal. But if they can't, then we need to see if Isaac Copeland can do it better. Overall, it doesn't seem like that much. I can completely see it coming together. But it hasn't so far, and watching the Kansas game... we should be a significantly better team and aren't there yet. I hope they get there. With DSR, I'd like to see us utilize ball screens more with guys who are themselves perimeter or slashing threats (Peak, Copeland, White, Trawick). We very often ball screen only with a true big and the problem there is that neither big is particularly good at either the "pop" or the "roll" that is the natural next play. By increasing pressure on the defense, you get more opportunities for DSR to end up with a true mismatch or a confused defense. Aside from that, I've almost never seen us quickly rotate the ball out of a double-team in the post. Josh may look for a cutter, or he passes back out to someone on the perimeter, who then resets. But after the perimeter pass, we have not been adept at aggressively rotating the ball to the weak-side (which would be a prime spot for an open and in rhythm DSR three). In any event, I completely agree that getting him going is crucial. Aside from getting DSR going (and if you get good shots for him early, and they still don't go in, there's not much else you can do), the TOs are the biggest issue, IMO. Way too many empty trips. I'd like to see Josh wait a tick more often, spot the double, and then react. I think he turns into it too often, not seeing it. Mikael is a tough one, though, in terms of limiting weaknesses. I think the key is to try to ensure that he's out there nearly all of the time as the only limited offensive guy. I'm more optimistic than you are, generally, though. I think our defense has improved -- I thought it was overall much better these past two games than against, say, Butler. And I think the usage of Josh has improved a good deal also. We've lost three games to ranked opponents by essentially one possession each. I recognize that (a) we did indeed lose them; (b) we don't really know if two of those ranked opponents are as good as their ranking indicates; and (c) we beat another opponent by just that same one possession. But the bottom line is that I think the things we do well on a very consistent basis will be enough to consistently beat most teams on our schedule even without any real improvement. Unlike last year, we will be a good team throughout the year (barring the unforeseen). I really think that improving in any one of the three areas you listed would make us very good. Indeed, if we had improved in any of them to this point, we'd likely be at worst a one-loss team with some nice scalps and a ranking.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Dec 12, 2014 13:04:20 GMT -5
Aside from getting DSR going (and if you get good shots for him early, and they still don't go in, there's not much else you can do), the TOs are the biggest issue, IMO. Way too many empty trips. I'd like to see Josh wait a tick more often, spot the double, and then react. I think he turns into it too often, not seeing it. Mikael is a tough one, though, in terms of limiting weaknesses. I think the key is to try to ensure that he's out there nearly all of the time as the only limited offensive guy. I think this is ultimately right. Hopkins is such an asset on defense - I mean, maybe the numbers don't bear it out, and I don't want to be a "feel" guy, but he sure did look dominant on D and on the boards at times Wednesday night. He also knows the offense, he just isn't a good offensive player. Back to your point, I think it is limiting Trawick and Hopkins' time together on the Court - too much given away on O. Unfortunately, again, I see the potential for Trawick's minutes to shrink even more because he just isn't providing enough value-add on either end of the Court and is way too reckless with the dribble-drive on O. Hope he turns it around and regains confidence in his outside shot, and does it soon, because i LOVE the guy.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 12, 2014 13:30:48 GMT -5
Great post, SF. I agree that some issues will remain (Hopkins is one of our most important players, despite his statistical inefficiencies), and some will improve (like the defensive rotations of our freshmen). With a lot of work and some luck (good health, a few bounces here and there), this team can be pretty good. But we will have to wait and see what happens.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 12, 2014 13:35:12 GMT -5
Agree on the screens. Neither Josh nor Hopkins are a threat to hit the jumper and neither rolls very often. Having a guy who can shoot flash out or having someone cut to the basket would open up everything.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Dec 12, 2014 13:47:26 GMT -5
Great points about DSR. Too often, when he goes one on one, it results in a very difficult long two point jumper. That's the worst shot on the court, as everyone knows. As good as he is as a shooter, we should be scheming to get him better looks than that. I am a fan of his tricky little mid-range fadeaway game, though he didn't have it going at all against Kansas.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Dec 12, 2014 13:47:35 GMT -5
Understand that it's a small sample size, but Hopkins foul rate per 40 is actually down this year (5.9 from 6.2). I think he's marginally improved in this area (a few less brain-dead fouls 40 feet from the basket being the biggest difference in my eyes).
Agree with just about everything else. The one thing I'll mildly disagree on is that the idea that Jabril can't be a plus dribble-drive guy. I think he can be when he's not forcing. If he can stick to attacking only when his matchup is favorable (or defender is off-balance) and not for the sake of just making something happen, it can be a strength for us rather than a weakness.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,351
|
Post by calhoya on Dec 12, 2014 14:01:04 GMT -5
Sometimes statistics can be misleading. Hopkins gets fouls--some very avoidable-- for being the last line of defense and often in help defense mode. Smith is never going to get the benefit of the doubt and seems to pick up at least one phantom foul a game. As for Trawick and Bowen, regardless of their fouls, they are critical components to the defense.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 12, 2014 14:10:50 GMT -5
Understand that it's a small sample size, but Hopkins foul rate per 40 is actually down this year (5.9 from 6.2). I think he's marginally improved in this area (a few less brain-dead fouls 40 feet from the basket being the biggest difference in my eyes). Agree with just about everything else. The one thing I'll mildly disagree on is that the idea that Jabril can't be a plus dribble-drive guy. I think he can be when he's not forcing. If he can stick to attacking only when his matchup is favorable (or defender is off-balance) and not for the sake of just making something happen, it can be a strength for us rather than a weakness. Hopkins: 0.3/40 decline at this point isn't just not really valuable, it's not statistically significant. What is that, one foul every 4-5 games? Trawick: You're agreeing with me. If Trawick wants to drive, he needs to be set up -- coming off screens, ball movement, something which creates an alley. He's simply not quick enough or has a good enough handle to take someone right off the dribble. And he tried it three times against Kansas.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Dec 12, 2014 14:12:51 GMT -5
Overall, it doesn't seem like that much. I can completely see it coming together. But it hasn't so far, and watching the Kansas game... we should be a significantly better team and aren't there yet. I hope they get there. Great thoughts. I'm still really curious on people's thoughts re: when they think it all comes together. I said Wednesday night that we essentially replayed the plot of the Butler game, and that it was probably too much to expect our current growing pains to have been over after only two weeks. But I'm totally on board with the twin ideas that this team has a high ceiling and they're really close to making the leap. We've mentioned a lot the two recent examples of teams making the leap from slow starts: 2007 and 2013. Both teams made the leap in mid-January and rolled off 11 game winning streaks. The 2007 team was 11-5 and 1-2 in the BE when theirs started on January 17th. The 2013 team was 2-3 in the Big East with the awful Pitt loss and loss at USF when theirs started on January 21st. Would anyone be surprised if this team did the same in January? Not that it's cool to look ahead with a young team, but after the Xavier game on NYE (which has weirdness written all over it), we have a 4-home-games-in-6 stretch that ain't that hard and ends with Villanova on MLK Day and, yeah, that sounds fascinating right now.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 12, 2014 14:17:34 GMT -5
Sometimes statistics can be misleading. Hopkins gets fouls--some very avoidable-- for being the last line of defense and often in help defense mode. Smith is never going to get the benefit of the doubt and seems to pick up at least one phantom foul a game. As for Trawick and Bowen, regardless of their fouls, they are critical components to the defense. Oh, good lord, no. Perfect example against Kansas -- guy has ball on perimeter, perimeter defender is shading interior. Sitting in the bar, I say baseline. 2 seconds later, Hopkins reacts late to a drive along the baseline. Foul, etc. It's terrible defense on his part because we was incredibly late on a one step rotation. Watch old tape of Otto Porter or even Paul White now -- watch them move and react to the situation as it occurs instead of delay / over reaction / foul. He also had a couple of his patented "watch me try to block a shot I can't so my man can get the easy offensive board" as well. He's a good defender -- especially one on one -- Perry Ellis was shut down -- but the fouls are a weakness. The are mostly on Hopkins; they aren't going away and they reduce his effectiveness as a defender.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Dec 12, 2014 14:21:28 GMT -5
Understand that it's a small sample size, but Hopkins foul rate per 40 is actually down this year (5.9 from 6.2). I think he's marginally improved in this area (a few less brain-dead fouls 40 feet from the basket being the biggest difference in my eyes). Agree with just about everything else. The one thing I'll mildly disagree on is that the idea that Jabril can't be a plus dribble-drive guy. I think he can be when he's not forcing. If he can stick to attacking only when his matchup is favorable (or defender is off-balance) and not for the sake of just making something happen, it can be a strength for us rather than a weakness. Hopkins: 0.3/40 decline at this point isn't just not really valuable, it's not statistically significant. What is that, one foul every 4-5 games? Trawick: You're agreeing with me. If Trawick wants to drive, he needs to be set up -- coming off screens, ball movement, something which creates an alley. He's simply not quick enough or has a good enough handle to take someone right off the dribble. And he tried it three times against Kansas. For Hop, it's all about minutes played without being in foul trouble. Case in point; he fouled out against KU, but didn't pick up his 1st until there were 4 minutes left in the first half. Too often last year, he would pick up 2 fouls in the first 2 minutes and strain our bench. It may not be statistically significant from a fouls per 40 minute standpoint, but the extra 3-4 minutes he can stay on the floor per game is a big difference for us no matter how bad he sucks on offense, especially until the freshman can get it defensively. Trawick can take some defenders 1 on 1 without help, he just needs to identify who he can and who he can't do it against. Kansas's guards were too quick for him, but you can't tell me he can't beat any defender on any BE team during conference play off the dribble without a screen or being fed off a cut to the basket.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 12, 2014 14:21:39 GMT -5
Overall, it doesn't seem like that much. I can completely see it coming together. But it hasn't so far, and watching the Kansas game... we should be a significantly better team and aren't there yet. I hope they get there. Great thoughts. I'm still really curious on people's thoughts re: when they think it all comes together. I said Wednesday night that we essentially replayed the plot of the Butler game, and that it was probably too much to expect our current growing pains to have been over after only two weeks. But I'm totally on board with the twin ideas that this team has a high ceiling and they're really close to making the leap. We've mentioned a lot the two recent examples of teams making the leap from slow starts: 2007 and 2013. Both teams made the leap in mid-January and rolled off 11 game winning streaks. The 2007 team was 11-5 and 1-2 in the BE when theirs started on January 17th. The 2013 team was 2-3 in the Big East with the awful Pitt loss and loss at USF when theirs started on January 21st. Would anyone be surprised if this team did the same in January? Not that it's cool to look ahead with a young team, but after the Xavier game on NYE (which has weirdness written all over it), we have a 4-home-games-in-6 stretch that ain't that hard and ends with Villanova on MLK Day and, yeah, that sounds fascinating right now. That doesn't sound unreasonable. The only issue is that it was just fine to take a while to come together in the old Big East. In the new Big East, not winning our non-con matchups means we have such a small margin of error in the regular season. Indiana is a really-need-to-win. And that's scary since it is in December.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Dec 12, 2014 14:30:56 GMT -5
SF Agree with your geneal premise. Though i believe some of the weaknesses that you point out may be far more difficult to overcome. DSR i agree needs to get better and earlier shots within the offense but when you have limited effective options beside you in the backcourt other than a Peak drive, and both Peak and Trawick have yet to show much in the way of passing ability you are then left with Hopkins and Smith to run the offense through to get him the ball. Thus far both have shown ability on the backdoor cut but in forcing things we have had a few too many turnovers.
On defense yes the freshman and really the whole team need to drastically improve their rotations. Its been abysmal all season primarily because of the constant switching, most time uneccessarily. It did improve during the Kansas game only because limited switching and actually fought through screens though Kansas doesnot rely on screening to generate space that much. My major concern defensively is how limited we are with our man defense and that we require so much help defense on any kind of pnetration or move to the lane. Thats where we are also showcasing our rotation issues never mind foul trouble, legs and stamina issues from constant movement to rotate. If I'm scouting our defense all you need is penetration with a kick out and 3 passes to rotate for a open shot. its available every time.
Just one positive on Peak 3 weeks ago the kid looked absolutely lost defensively yes he did have a couple of issue against Kansas but so did some others, but his defense has improved almost every game will never be a stopper but may not be the liability that i feared he would be.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 12, 2014 14:41:36 GMT -5
Hopkins: 0.3/40 decline at this point isn't just not really valuable, it's not statistically significant. What is that, one foul every 4-5 games? Trawick: You're agreeing with me. If Trawick wants to drive, he needs to be set up -- coming off screens, ball movement, something which creates an alley. He's simply not quick enough or has a good enough handle to take someone right off the dribble. And he tried it three times against Kansas. For Hop, it's all about minutes played without being in foul trouble. Case in point; he fouled out against KU, but didn't pick up his 1st until there were 4 minutes left in the first half. Too often last year, he would pick up 2 fouls in the first 2 minutes and strain our bench. It may not be statistically significant from a fouls per 40 minute standpoint, but the extra 3-4 minutes he can stay on the floor per game is a big difference for us no matter how bad he sucks on offense, especially until the freshman can get it defensively. Trawick can take some defenders 1 on 1 without help, he just needs to identify who he can and who he can't do it against. Kansas's guards were too quick for him, but you can't tell me he can't beat any defender on any BE team during conference play off the dribble without a screen or being fed off a cut to the basket. Completely disagree. On Hopkins, the point of not fouling isn't just to keep him on the floor. It's to not send guys to the line. Our defense is pretty good when opponents aren't shooting FTs -- we probably give up around .9 pts/possession. When they go to the line? Close to 1.5. And Trawick? I've never seen him beat a balanced, face up defender from a real opponent off the dribble. But that's irrelevant -- he failed against Kansas and kept doing it. And it cost us the game. Our seniors are adding quite a few points to our opponents' total every game. Add in the missed layups, the dumb turnovers, the strange over-commits on plays already over ... and it's the equivalent of starting a game quite a few points down (I'll do the math later). The problem with these points is that there's seemingly no ways to get rid of them. The issues have been there for years, and they aren't changing. This isn't DSR having a bad shooting day; this is negative points guaranteed to happen. It's simply hard to overcome.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 12, 2014 14:52:36 GMT -5
Great thoughts. I'm still really curious on people's thoughts re: when they think it all comes together. I said Wednesday night that we essentially replayed the plot of the Butler game, and that it was probably too much to expect our current growing pains to have been over after only two weeks. But I'm totally on board with the twin ideas that this team has a high ceiling and they're really close to making the leap. We've mentioned a lot the two recent examples of teams making the leap from slow starts: 2007 and 2013. Both teams made the leap in mid-January and rolled off 11 game winning streaks. The 2007 team was 11-5 and 1-2 in the BE when theirs started on January 17th. The 2013 team was 2-3 in the Big East with the awful Pitt loss and loss at USF when theirs started on January 21st. Would anyone be surprised if this team did the same in January? Not that it's cool to look ahead with a young team, but after the Xavier game on NYE (which has weirdness written all over it), we have a 4-home-games-in-6 stretch that ain't that hard and ends with Villanova on MLK Day and, yeah, that sounds fascinating right now. That doesn't sound unreasonable. The only issue is that it was just fine to take a while to come together in the old Big East. In the new Big East, not winning our non-con matchups means we have such a small margin of error in the regular season. Indiana is a really-need-to-win. And that's scary since it is in December. Interestingly, excepting DePaul, Indiana is the opponent remaining on our schedule with the lowest current RPI (yes, including Radford and Charlotte, which is presently a top 50 team!). So, it's a need-to-win in the sense that any game against a mediocre opponent is a need-to-win, but we are nearly certain to have at least six opportunities for top 50 games left and every game remaining may be against a top 150 team at least as good as Indiana. The failure to capitalize on top-tier wins may have left little room for error in last year's BE, but I think even if we were to go 2-1 with our final out-of-conference games, we'd be no worse than on the bubble even with a middling 10-8 BE campaign. And let's face it, if we can't go 11-7 (which would almost surely do it), we probably aren't as good as we think we are (even without much of the improvement you hope for) anyway.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 12, 2014 14:55:03 GMT -5
Good point, Aleutian.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,924
|
Post by NCHoya on Dec 12, 2014 15:19:53 GMT -5
With regard to getting DSR more opportunities, someone else needs to play lead guard for parts of the game. DSR is a natural and damn good 2 guard at the college level, he has been moved out of his comfort zone and it is evident in the way he does not seem to know when and how to pick his spots consistently. Rather than reinvent the wheel, when we are struggling to find points, I say take him off the ball and let him do what he does best. I would love to see Campbell step into this role as PG #2, but his lack of PT says III does not think he is a viable option.
As for waiting on the freshman . . . that is probably the right perspective to take. I have already seen improvement in the defense and I expect that to trend better and better. This team's length will make up for a lot of sins on defense. Closing out rebounds would be nice, but some of that is just the result of playing freshmen at key positions. It is a lot harder to board in college; they are learning what it takes in terms of anticipation, positioning and the physical effort required against big boys. That said, we held our own on the boards against KU.
#3 is easily the most controversial. Basically you are talking about cutting minutes on the seniors. For Hopkins, I think it is not possible. He is not playing crazy minutes now, and we need his rebounding and defense. No freshman can come close to his ability on that end of the court. Perhaps there will be some match-ups that do not require Hopkins skill-set but overall he needs to be in there for his 20-25 minutes. That said, he should not have the green light from almost anywhere on the court offensively. I guess you have to give him the green light on put-backs and lay-ups, but that is only because he likely will draw a foul after being stripped of the ball.
For Trawick, this is a confidence issue. If he played like he did the second half of last season, we would not even be having this discussion. He is slumping. Do you stick with him or bench him? Not sure, he may be better coming off the bench as an energy guy. He has never been at his best in big games though.
Personally, I know what the stats say, but I would give Bowen more time, perhaps from Trawick. He is a playmaker - good and bad. But the good plays he makes, are so uplifting to a team that can sometimes look like its feet are nailed to the court. It is nearly impossible to beat the Hoyas when Bowen has a good game and is dialed in.
Really, I am not sure what other minutes can be swapped around. In general, I think LJ gets too many minutes, but against KU, his courage to take the shots was very valuable. I would cut any minutes Cameron is getting and give them to Copeland - to me that is a no brainer. Copeland is probaly the top priority in getting more minutes, followed by Campbell (because his would be highest impact).
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,764
|
Post by njhoya78 on Dec 12, 2014 15:38:16 GMT -5
Copeland is averaging 14.8 minutes per game, Campbell 11.6 minutes per game and Cameron 7.6 minutes per game. I don't disagree with the desire to allocate more minutes to Copeland or Campbell, but you are suggesting that significant minutes can be taken away from the player whose playing time is already lower than nine other Hoyas. It is entirely likely that Cameron's playing time is going to be dependent upon whether he hits that first shot attempt each game; I think you have to consider increased minutes for Copeland and Campbell coming from the upperclassmen (i.e., Hopkins, Bowen and Trawick) if they are not contributing positively on a game-by-game basis.
This is an unusual GU team: we have always been very dependent upon upperclassmen to carry the day. The amount of pressure now being placed upon the freshmen is, to my recollection, unprecedented. We are, in effect, requesting JT3 to ignore muscle memory, in his reliance upon the upperclassmen. As he is being patient with the seniors, maybe we need to be likewise patient with him. I think that the playing time allocation we are presently seeing (and about which we are, in part, complaining) will look a lot difference by the middle of the Big East conference schedule.
|
|