|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 20, 2015 13:34:17 GMT -5
Alas, I'm not sure we'll see much man again in conference play. We looked so much more decisive against man defense than we have against zone, and MU will certainly be a reality check in that regard. I'm hopeful that we're starting to see a glimpse of where we might be at the end of the year, and if Cope and White want to play like that, I think we can end up being as good against the zone as we are against man. It didn't feel like we were playing with fool's gold last night--other than Jabril's heat check 3, it seemed like everything we got came out of good decisions and our aggressiveness. If we're going to make a run in March, it's going to require our freshmen to take a leap up. Hopefully the last few days is the start of that. The more zone we face, the better we will play against it - especially come BET and NCAA time.
|
|
OldHoyafan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,387
|
Post by OldHoyafan on Jan 20, 2015 14:05:41 GMT -5
Great performance by the HOYAS last night. The game reminded me of the Duke game a few years back when the HOYAS totally dismantled the Blue Devils' man defense and coach K refused to play a zone. What I liked most about the HOYAS approach was that they stayed in attack mode until the last shot was put up by Tre at the end of the game. There was no "let's take some time off the clock" mentality. They constantly probed the defense to get the best shot regardless if that was within the first 10 seconds or the last 10 seconds. I think we can all go out on a limb and say that the HOYAS will see very little man-to-man defense for the rest of the conference schedule, even in Philly. I hope the last two games gives the freshmen(White,Copeland,Pesk and Campbell) the confidence to continue to be in an attack mode even when playing against a zone defense. The shots will be there either at the top of the free throw line or back of the zone for White or Copeland. LJ has to use his quick first step to get into the lane and take that 8-10 ft jump shot instead of trying to pass to Josh all the time. Constant movement across the zone is the key. This offense gets real ugly when guys are just standing waiting for a backdoor cut.
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Jan 20, 2015 16:19:00 GMT -5
Thinking back on that providence game, if we don't choke that one away, we'd probably be looking at a top 15 ranking right now. Interesting to think about. If we can get past Marquette on Saturday, we'll almost certainly be ranked. If we can then string together a few wins (feasible, given our schedule), I think a top 15 ranking is well within the realm of being reasonable. We need to take care of business at Marquette first, which will be no easy task. There is little reason to discuss rankings until this team proves it can win a conference game somewhere other than Verizon Center or Allstate Arena. It will have been a year and two weeks since that last happened (at Butler last January).
|
|
b52legend
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 453
|
Post by b52legend on Jan 20, 2015 16:46:41 GMT -5
Great performance by the HOYAS last night. The game reminded me of the Duke game a few years back when the HOYAS totally dismantled the Blue Devils' man defense and coach K refused to play a zone. What I liked most about the HOYAS approach was that they stayed in attack mode until the last shot was put up by Tre at the end of the game. There was no "let's take some time off the clock" mentality. They constantly probed the defense to get the best shot regardless if that was within the first 10 seconds or the last 10 seconds. I think we can all go out on a limb and say that the HOYAS will see very little man-to-man defense for the rest of the conference schedule, even in Philly. I hope the last two games gives the freshmen(White,Copeland,Pesk and Campbell) the confidence to continue to be in an attack mode even when playing against a zone defense. The shots will be there either at the top of the free throw line or back of the zone for White or Copeland. LJ has to use his quick first step to get into the lane and take that 8-10 ft jump shot instead of trying to pass to Josh all the time. Constant movement across the zone is the key. This offense gets real ugly when guys are just standing waiting for a backdoor cut. I would disagree slightly with your characterization of what we saw as Georgetown's offense trying to get the "best" shot -- I find that usually leads to lots of turnovers and a stagnant offense. What I saw was guys willing to take a "good" shot regardless of it presented itself 5 seconds into the shot clock or 30. They also were willing to create their own "good" shot if given the opportunity. I have never had a problem with a guy taking a quick shot if it is an open look. If the shot is missed, the game announcers will surely criticize the shot as rushed or say the team "didn't run their offense". I never really understood this -- isn't the goal to get a good look? Last night we saw DSR, Copeland, White and Trawick all take shots that could have been categorized as "quick", but they were open (OK, Trawick might have gotten a little frisky) and our guys nailed them. I'll take that. Taking the first good look that presents itself also cuts down on turnovers for a few reasons - (1) you are shooting the ball, so obviously you avoid additional passes and opportunities to turn it over and (2) if you don't take the early open look, then you obviously are going to be looking for something better (e.g., a wide open layup or dunk) which usually leads to more dangerous passes in pursuit of that goal. Given the Hoya's good offensive rebounding rate, just getting a shot up on the rim isn't a terrible play regardless of if it goes in or not. I'm certainly not advocating jacking the ball up quickly in all situations, but I have witnessed too many Georgetown games where it looks like the offense won't be satisfied with anything but an uncontested backdoor dunk. I think we function much better when our guys have the confidence to shoot when open and make plays when presented with a driving lane. That opens up everything else and the passing lanes for those back door passes and uncontested dunks suddenly get a lot larger.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 20, 2015 17:17:52 GMT -5
The issue is whether you are taking a shot(especially a long jumper) with 25 left on the clock that you will still be able to get with 6 or 7 on the clock. If that is the case, work for a better shot if available, then you still have the jumper later. But if you are a shooter who is left open early, and may not be open late - take the open shot.
|
|
dense
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,014
|
Post by dense on Jan 20, 2015 17:28:33 GMT -5
Great performance by the HOYAS last night. The game reminded me of the Duke game a few years back when the HOYAS totally dismantled the Blue Devils' man defense and coach K refused to play a zone. What I liked most about the HOYAS approach was that they stayed in attack mode until the last shot was put up by Tre at the end of the game. There was no "let's take some time off the clock" mentality. They constantly probed the defense to get the best shot regardless if that was within the first 10 seconds or the last 10 seconds. I think we can all go out on a limb and say that the HOYAS will see very little man-to-man defense for the rest of the conference schedule, even in Philly. I hope the last two games gives the freshmen(White,Copeland,Pesk and Campbell) the confidence to continue to be in an attack mode even when playing against a zone defense. The shots will be there either at the top of the free throw line or back of the zone for White or Copeland. LJ has to use his quick first step to get into the lane and take that 8-10 ft jump shot instead of trying to pass to Josh all the time. Constant movement across the zone is the key. This offense gets real ugly when guys are just standing waiting for a backdoor cut. I would disagree slightly with your characterization of what we saw as Georgetown's offense trying to get the "best" shot -- I find that usually leads to lots of turnovers and a stagnant offense. What I saw was guys willing to take a "good" shot regardless of it presented itself 5 seconds into the shot clock or 30. They also were willing to create their own "good" shot if given the opportunity. I have never had a problem with a guy taking a quick shot if it is an open look. If the shot is missed, the game announcers will surely criticize the shot as rushed or say the team "didn't run their offense". I never really understood this -- isn't the goal to get a good look? Last night we saw DSR, Copeland, White and Trawick all take shots that could have been categorized as "quick", but they were open (OK, Trawick might have gotten a little frisky) and our guys nailed them. I'll take that. Taking the first good look that presents itself also cuts down on turnovers for a few reasons - (1) you are shooting the ball, so obviously you avoid additional passes and opportunities to turn it over and (2) if you don't take the early open look, then you obviously are going to be looking for something better (e.g., a wide open layup or dunk) which usually leads to more dangerous passes in pursuit of that goal. Given the Hoya's good offensive rebounding rate, just getting a shot up on the rim isn't a terrible play regardless of if it goes in or not. I'm certainly not advocating jacking the ball up quickly in all situations, but I have witnessed too many Georgetown games where it looks like the offense won't be satisfied with anything but an uncontested backdoor dunk. I think we function much better when our guys have the confidence to shoot when open and make plays when presented with a driving lane. That opens up everything else and the passing lanes for those back door passes and uncontested dunks suddenly get a lot larger. I agree with this to an extent. You have to realize what a good shot is in terms of score, flow and time. So taking a wide open 3 after you have missed 2 quickly might not be a good thing if probing for a lay up might be a better option. Plus there is a benefit to making a team guard for more than 5 seconds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 17:31:20 GMT -5
love the commentary on a day after a big win. even the negative posts come across pretty comedic.
Clearly this team is off the bubble, although I still worry a team this young can have a few letdowns to go back into the red zone. The upside of this is that I'm not quite sure how high our ceiling is anymore. I used to think 1 win in the NCAAs but maybe a one or two more? winning at marquette would be a huge signpost for me about this team's maturity, as would potentially beating xavier with ranking (bullseye) on your back.
Obviously it was dumb for Jay Wright to stay in man, but I guess he just had zero confidence in the zone. I would have tried it anyway just to see what happened, but the Hoyas just played so much hungrier last night I think they probably win no matter the defense thrown at them. I was impressed with the directness of their offense that some posters have alluded to-- the attack mode and the lack of hesitation to take the first good available shot. for the past 3 quarters, the offense has just seemed a lot more streamlined. Defense has rotated and communicated much better too.
Obviously, a lot of this has to do with the emergence of Copeland and guys like Jabril stepping up into their senior roles. The Copeland/White lineup is going to be a nightmare for opponents and a pleasure for us to watch. I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that JT3 was hiding this combo against scouting as he is usually a pretty straightforward tactician, but I had been shocked it wasn't used earlier in the season. If he really thought Copeland/White was the way to win, I have a hard time believing that he wouldnt have pulled that out of his pocket versus Provvy. Guess I'll have to accept the company line that Copeland needed more minutes to get comfortable, although it's hard to believe he was ever not comfortable with that smooth jumper and freakish athleticism. As much as I loved the dunks the pump fake and baseline jumper and the ball fake and pull-up at the key were both NBA moves. He is like a more athletic Otto although I'm not sure he does all the little things....yet. Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing more of him and white together.
Speaking of JT3, can there just be a space in between those who mindlessly call for his firing and those who reflexively defend him. The debate in the "hot seat" thread is so absolutist that many of us who take balanced positions get thrown in as JT3 haters or apologists for merely pointing out that, yes, he has done a lot for the program and continues to win big games, but, no, he's not perfect and there are frustrating things about his coaching style. I do think that JT3 has changed a bit in his recruiting and in-game coaching, but he's still got a long way to go. There have been some very level headed posts about what it would take for him to be replaced-- a ton more losses -- and what we would like to see him improve on. Unfortunately, as is the case in so many parts of our society, the loudest voices in the room are the partisans....
As for the court-storming? Eh, I probably wouldnt have done it myself, but I'm not gonna go ballistic on some kids having a good time. Personally, I'd have a great time without having to storm, but that's me. I do wonder if it speaks to a heavy proportion of underclassmen among the student section or people that just come to big games and don't really know the "rules." Or maybe I'm just over-thinking it. For those saying that if storming means fans are engaged, I'll be interested to see how many of them return for the rest of our home slate...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 17:33:49 GMT -5
I would disagree slightly with your characterization of what we saw as Georgetown's offense trying to get the "best" shot -- I find that usually leads to lots of turnovers and a stagnant offense. What I saw was guys willing to take a "good" shot regardless of it presented itself 5 seconds into the shot clock or 30. They also were willing to create their own "good" shot if given the opportunity. I have never had a problem with a guy taking a quick shot if it is an open look. If the shot is missed, the game announcers will surely criticize the shot as rushed or say the team "didn't run their offense". I never really understood this -- isn't the goal to get a good look? Last night we saw DSR, Copeland, White and Trawick all take shots that could have been categorized as "quick", but they were open (OK, Trawick might have gotten a little frisky) and our guys nailed them. I'll take that. Taking the first good look that presents itself also cuts down on turnovers for a few reasons - (1) you are shooting the ball, so obviously you avoid additional passes and opportunities to turn it over and (2) if you don't take the early open look, then you obviously are going to be looking for something better (e.g., a wide open layup or dunk) which usually leads to more dangerous passes in pursuit of that goal. Given the Hoya's good offensive rebounding rate, just getting a shot up on the rim isn't a terrible play regardless of if it goes in or not. I'm certainly not advocating jacking the ball up quickly in all situations, but I have witnessed too many Georgetown games where it looks like the offense won't be satisfied with anything but an uncontested backdoor dunk. I think we function much better when our guys have the confidence to shoot when open and make plays when presented with a driving lane. That opens up everything else and the passing lanes for those back door passes and uncontested dunks suddenly get a lot larger. I agree with this to an extent. You have to realize what a good shot is in terms of score, flow and time. So taking a wide open 3 after you have missed 2 quickly might not be a good thing if probing for a lay up might be a better option. Plus there is a benefit to making a team guard for more than 5 seconds. This is a good point. There is a benefit to mixing up your offense to keep defenses off balance. Don't want them knowing you wont do anything until the last 10 seconds but it's also not good to let them off the hook by only making them defend of 5 seconds....
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 20, 2015 17:51:41 GMT -5
Speaking of JT3, can there just be a space in between those who mindlessly call for his firing and those who reflexively defend him. The debate in the "hot seat" thread is so absolutist that many of us who take balanced positions get thrown in as JT3 haters or apologists for merely pointing out that, yes, he has done a lot for the program and continues to win big games, but, no, he's not perfect and there are frustrating things about his coaching style. I do think that JT3 has changed a bit in his recruiting and in-game coaching, but he's still got a long way to go. There have been some very level headed posts about what it would take for him to be replaced-- a ton more losses -- and what we would like to see him improve on. Unfortunately, as is the case in so many parts of our society, the loudest voices in the room are the partisans.... There is a space for that. I think there's plenty to criticize. But you're not going to find space in the middle in a thread that starts with a conversation about firing him. Since the conversation is almost always started by the criticizers by definition (not a lot of JTIII is awesome! threads), if the discussion started without mention of firing, without being insulting and with giving some credit for reasons he makes the decisions he does, that would go a long way. For example, I think he's making a big mistake with the amount of PT he gives Hopkins at PF. I realize it's not a ton of time; I realize he doesn't trust the freshmen on defense. He's definitely a guy who leans towards shutting down the opponent on D rather than leaving a defensive mismatch out there and trying to exploit the one on the other end, i.e., if Josh is getting beat by a smaller guy he will put Hopkins instead of going inside to Josh every play. I still think he's wrong. Lots of people disagree with me. At no point do I state Thompson is an idiot or unworthy to be our coach. I make an effort to understand his POV. But I disagree. Contrast that with most criticisms: hidden calls for firing; constant character attacks "stubborn" "idiotic" Etc.; factually incorrect claims "he hasn't made an adjustment in 10 years" "we're always terrible against the zone" "teams never come back from double digit deficits." And expect some people to disagree. Do people reflexively defend him really, or are people just annoyed that people disagree with their estimation?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 20, 2015 18:16:48 GMT -5
Agreed. it's a message board. Let people talk about what they want to talk about. It's ridiculous to think this is the only sports message board where people criticize the team and the coach. If you dont want to participate in the thread, go to another one. Im ecstatic about the win last night, but maybe it hasnt solved every problem we've ever had. Just a thought. I've never gotten this argument. It's a message board. Just as much as it's a place for you to bitch about whatever, it's a place for people to disagree with whatever you are bitching about. Not saying this of anyone in particular, and not you, jook, but I always find it odd that the people who are so quick to criticize -- and often in ways that aren't respectful at all -- are the first to complain when someone brings it back at them. Surely, if you can dish it, you can take it. As to your other point, I don't think this solved everything. It certainly did not. But people talking about the hot seat because Mikael Hopkins was 0-6 on FTs was ridiculous. It's one thing to criticize choices and play; it's another to bring up firing a coach in that scenario. And yes, talking about a hot seat is talking about firing. It's just the wussy way to go about it. So, needling people about overreaction to an away loss in the Big East seems totally within bounds to me. As does really any response you have here to me. It's a message board. But it goes both ways. Who are the critical/negative posters needling when they make critical/negative statements about JT3, players or the program? To me they're just expressing opinions on the program.. I agree with you that many of the comments are over the top but I doubt they're getting any great pleasure from posting the critical/negative comments and that's probably why you don't read much from them when the team wins because they're gloating like the rest of us.. When they do dish it, they get it back from the many folks who disagree with them and there's usually a lot of debate going back & forth.. Which we'd have to admit makes for interesting threads more times than not.. However when the team does well and folks want to "needle" the negative posters there's never gonna be any back & forth because I'm sure they're happy to be proven wrong for that game.. I just don't get the point of posting some comment to "needle" other posters after a win just because they were negative after a loss(Terrible loss if we're talking about the Providence game)
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 20, 2015 18:18:40 GMT -5
For example, I think he's making a big mistake with the amount of PT he gives Hopkins at PF. I realize it's not a ton of time; I realize he doesn't trust the freshmen on defense. He's definitely a guy who leans towards shutting down the opponent on D rather than leaving a defensive mismatch out there and trying to exploit the one on the other end, i.e., if Josh is getting beat by a smaller guy he will put Hopkins instead of going inside to Josh every play. I still think he's wrong. Lots of people disagree with me. At no point do I state Thompson is an idiot or unworthy to be our coach. I make an effort to understand his POV. But I disagree. +1. I really think the starting line-up needs to change because it is never our strongest line-up as evidenced by the fact that it is rarely our second half starting line-up and we infrequently have the starters all in together again the rest of the game. Additionally the next guy off the bench is usually White for Smith, which is a better line-up but can still be underwhelming depending upon match-ups. It usually takes until the third or fourth substitution before we start getting effective line-ups in there. While I'm not a big believer in the starting 5 having to be the best 5, it's a little ridiculous that it takes at least 5 minutes into the game to get a line-up has a chance of being on of our best line-ups. I'm usually not in favor of changing the starting line-up, I really think moving Hopkins out of the starting 5 and into back up for Josh is our best bet. We play better when they aren't on the floor together and it can only help in protecting the foul issues.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 20, 2015 18:35:19 GMT -5
I'm usually not in favor of changing the starting line-up, I really think moving Hopkins out of the starting 5 and into back up for Josh is our best bet. We play better when they aren't on the floor together and it can only help in protecting the foul issues. I agree with this. If I were the coach, I would not start Hopkins, and I would never play Smith and Hopkins together at the same time (unless a more extreme situation warranted it on defense). Personally, I'd probably go with DSR-Peak-Trawick-Copeland-Smith. I think there's plenty of room for White and Copeland to play together. One of the lineups that did so much damage last night was DSR-Bowen-White-Copeland-Hopkins. That lineup played extremely fast and worked well in transition. I'd love to see similar variations in the future when Smith is off the court.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 20, 2015 19:57:33 GMT -5
I've never gotten this argument. It's a message board. Just as much as it's a place for you to bitch about whatever, it's a place for people to disagree with whatever you are bitching about. Not saying this of anyone in particular, and not you, jook, but I always find it odd that the people who are so quick to criticize -- and often in ways that aren't respectful at all -- are the first to complain when someone brings it back at them. Surely, if you can dish it, you can take it. As to your other point, I don't think this solved everything. It certainly did not. But people talking about the hot seat because Mikael Hopkins was 0-6 on FTs was ridiculous. It's one thing to criticize choices and play; it's another to bring up firing a coach in that scenario. And yes, talking about a hot seat is talking about firing. It's just the wussy way to go about it. So, needling people about overreaction to an away loss in the Big East seems totally within bounds to me. As does really any response you have here to me. It's a message board. But it goes both ways. Who are the critical/negative posters needling when they make critical/negative statements about JT3, players or the program? To me they're just expressing opinions on the program.. I agree with you that many of the comments are over the top but I doubt they're getting any great pleasure from posting the critical/negative comments and that's probably why you don't read much from them when the team wins because they're gloating like the rest of us.. When they do dish it, they get it back from the many folks who disagree with them and there's usually a lot of debate going back & forth.. Which we'd have to admit makes for interesting threads more times than not.. However when the team does well and folks want to "needle" the negative posters there's never gonna be any back & forth because I'm sure they're happy to be proven wrong for that game.. I just don't get the point of posting some comment to "needle" other posters after a win just because they were negative after a loss(Terrible loss if we're talking about the Providence game) No offense, Etomic - but if you don't think some posters get pleasure from negative comments after losses, I think you are overlooking the obvious. To suggest that they don't show up after wins because they are enjoying the win? C'mon, you know better, right?
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jan 20, 2015 20:31:10 GMT -5
What exactly are we going to remember about this game a year from now? What a strange experience, but does it leave a lasting impression? On the trajectory of this season, you'd hope. But this game seems destined for the file marked "oh right, I forgot that happened" in the memory file.
Is it fatigue? Maybe we used up all the energy at the ending of the Butler game (or getting drunk after the ending of the Butler game). This was incidentally the 8th victory under JTIII over a Top 5 ranked team, but it never felt so blah.
Was it the blowout? I guess even I consigned this to the victory column with Brill hit a Grade A heat check to put us up 42-19. I just didn't see the fight in Nova last night--vintage Jay Wright would have been a lead pipe lock for a Rage Technical during our first half scoring run, so you gotta figure he knew things weren't right.
Were we all distracted? The commentary online after the game mirrors the discussions in the stands. The discussion of the students was like this surreal three act play--"Why can't they get rid of the tarps? There are so many students here!" to "Where were these students all year?" to at the conclusion of the game...well, you've read the thread and seen the coach's postgame and read/seen all the commentator #hottakes. Between that and the weird-as-crap officiating, you'd have forgotten we were watching Georgetown destroy the #4 team in the country.
Maybe it's Nova's fault, IDK. They're still on this "Most Anonymous Top Ten Team Ever" kick from last season. The record's great, and I've watched them work over some teams, but the schedule did them no favors, with Michigan and Syracuse being worse than expected, and the Big Five outside of Temple being kinda tragic this year. The only one of their games that stuck with me was their loss to Seton Hall, which is a good thing because at the beginning of last night's game I was thinking...hmmmm...reminds me of that start.
What will stick with me is this: in a game that featured 51 combined fouls, we went 11 minutes in the first half without committing one. During that time, the game went from 4-4 to 30-11, and Villanova went 3-11 from the field with 6 turnovers. It's fair to say we've had some defensive struggles during the season, but it's impossible to argue we haven't improved a ton in January.
|
|
wnyhoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 497
|
Post by wnyhoya on Jan 20, 2015 20:36:52 GMT -5
What a great win last night. Truly what I would call a dismantling of Villanova. Obviously they didn't play their best game but like JTIII said, I think a lot of it had to do with us. I am in the camp that we are the superior team talent-wise to Nova and that was evident last night. Unbelievable defensive effort from the entire team with the ability to force turnovers and not allow Pinkston or Ochefu to get comfortable the entire night. I absolutely hate how their entire team pump fakes just about on every catch. This team right now is on Jabril's back. Maybe he wasn't the high scorer but damn he's done so much the past two games. He's always been aggressive defensively but he usually gets too excited and puts two hands on his guy and picks up a foul. He's playing with the same amount of energy and aggression but doing it much more intelligently, which is maturity. And what can't be said about Isaac. Wow. There's a reason the recruiting services had him as a 5 star and our best recruit. We're seeing the light go on before our eyes. Confidence is such a dangerous thing in life, especially on the basketball court. He's special and combined with efforts like PW's last night in a supporting role, this team could be special too. And I didn't even mention our two best players DSR and Josh! Let's keep the foot on the gas and get back at Marquette for all the losses over the years up there. Hoya Saxa!
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 20, 2015 20:51:28 GMT -5
What exactly are we going to remember about this game a year from now? What a strange experience, but does it leave a lasting impression? On the trajectory of this season, you'd hope. But this game seems destined for the file marked "oh right, I forgot that happened" in the memory file. Is it fatigue? Maybe we used up all the energy at the ending of the Butler game (or getting drunk after the ending of the Butler game). This was incidentally the 8th victory under JTIII over a Top 5 ranked team, but it never felt so blah. Was it the blowout? I guess even I consigned this to the victory column with Brill hit a Grade A heat check to put us up 42-19. I just didn't see the fight in Nova last night--vintage Jay Wright would have been a lead pipe lock for a Rage Technical during our first half scoring run, so you gotta figure he knew things weren't right. Were we all distracted? The commentary online after the game mirrors the discussions in the stands. The discussion of the students was like this surreal three act play--"Why can't they get rid of the tarps? There are so many students here!" to "Where were these students all year?" to at the conclusion of the game...well, you've read the thread and seen the coach's postgame and read/seen all the commentator #hottakes. Between that and the weird-as-crap officiating, you'd have forgotten we were watching Georgetown destroy the #4 team in the country. Maybe it's Nova's fault, IDK. They're still on this "Most Anonymous Top Ten Team Ever" kick from last season. The record's great, and I've watched them work over some teams, but the schedule did them no favors, with Michigan and Syracuse being worse than expected, and the Big Five outside of Temple being kinda tragic this year. The only one of their games that stuck with me was their loss to Seton Hall, which is a good thing because at the beginning of last night's game I was thinking...hmmmm...reminds me of that start. What will stick with me is this: in a game that featured 51 combined fouls, we went 11 minutes in the first half without committing one. During that time, the game went from 4-4 to 30-11, and Villanova went 3-11 from the field with 6 turnovers. It's fair to say we've had some defensive struggles during the season, but it's impossible to argue we haven't improved a ton in January. The day Ike Copeland became a star.
|
|
KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on Jan 20, 2015 20:56:08 GMT -5
I expect the Villanova message boards have already posted a "At what point does Jay Wright's seat get warm..." thread. Maybe we should let that go. People had the right to be ticked off after that dreadful performance at Providence. It was typical of the offensive performance of too many games over the last few years. Indecision with the ball. Bad, unforced turnovers. Way too many missed free throws. Endless scoring droughts. Inability to get the ball inside to the big man. And a coach who refuses to call timeouts early and often in the game to get on his team to get its act together on offense. As aresult the Hoyas end up squandering possessions squandering time. That has been beyond frustrating and I placed the blame squarely on III. It wasn't about the talent, it was about doing whatever was necessary to get his players at a level in which competency in executing the offense was the norm. During the Xavier game when the color commentator claimed that Xavier had more players with offensive talent I wanted to throw up because that was bs. I felt the same way a couple of weeks ago after a win in which DFW said that outside of DSR, and maybe Smith, he didn't think anyone else on the team could generate offense (I'm paraphrasing a little bit). Nonsense. This team has a lot of talent, including enough guys who can score. III has to nurture that talent, demand that players display that skill and them put them in a position to best display those capabilities. Since the season was long I didn't jump aboard the whole "seat is getting warm" movement on this board, but I didn't blame those fans for their frustrations either. Last night's showing was a step in the right direction, not in terms of how much we beat Nova by (that's more of a fluke) but in terms of the execution. This team has a lot of ability and more than enough players with experience to help lead the way. To see that talent look aimless and clueless in the first half of that Providence game in which the Hoyas needed like 12 minutes to get to double figures and then, to no surprise, lose that game was apparently a breaking point for some folks. Granted there was some overreaction from some posters but that it to be expected. As I've written before you have Duke fans on message boards calling for K's job after losses. Fans of all teams do this. Agree 100%. The talent level this year puts us on another level and while I think JTIII did a decent job with the hand he was dealt last year (injuries, etc.), this year's team no question has the ability to win the conference, a conference I would add that top to bottom is well balanced, can compete with any other conference, and should send 7 or 8 teams to the NCAAs.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jan 20, 2015 21:12:28 GMT -5
One last point I want to make. We always have a tendency to complain about officiating after losses, but I'm going to harp on something after a 20 point win. I still cannot for the life of me understand how our players are not protected by the flagrant rule for contact above the head or reckless play. At least THREE separate instances tonight (Josh getting hit in the face in the 1st half, Jabril getting momentarily blinded in the 2nd, and Ochefu's dangerous play on the Copeland lob) could have been flagrants going our way, and not only did we get none, none were even reviewed. And those s had the gall to go to the monitor to review a non-foul on the Ennis drive as a flagrant. Give me a Editeding break. I'll say this again and I'm sure it won't be the last time: if they can't enforce the rule objectively and consistently, then they have to get rid of it. Here's the best I can explain this based on what I know of the rules: A flagrant 1 is basically a foul that is deemed excessive or unnecessary. You're allowed to review to determine whether one occurred. Among the things that are considered flagrant 1 fouls: 1. Illegal contact caused by swinging elbows. If you do it because of "total body movement" it's either a common foul or flagrant 1. So that covers Josh Smith in Atlantis--even if you think it's just "Josh being big" or "Josh making a post move," he's still swinging the elbows in a manner deemed unnecessary. If it's excessive, then it's a flagrant 2. There is such a thing, btw, as incidental contact that involves an elbow. 2. Pushing or holding a player to prevent a score. This covers what happened on the layup attempt that was reviewed last night. I was staring at the rim/backboard so I didn't see the "foul". I'm going to take the word of literally every fan who commented on it at the time and since who says that there wasn't any contact. So even if we accept that it was a bad call, it's still instructive for this point. Since the official thought it was a foul, fouling a guy from behind on a breakaway layup attempt falls into this category, and you're permitted to use replay to determine if a flagrant 1 occurred. In a neat little coincidence, two of the referees from last night's game worked the Duke-Miami game last week, which featured a review of the same kind of play--a Duke player made a hard foul on a Miami player going in for a dunk. They reviewed it and determined IIRC that there was a reasonable attempt to play the ball (which I found questionable) and did not award a flagrant foul. I'm guessing they realized last night on replay that they whiffed the call altogether, but based on my understanding of the rules, you can't use replay to undo a common foul, unless you messed up the player it was on. I think you CAN determine that something was a common foul instead of flagrant 1/2 though if you initially called it one way. 3. Causing excessive contact with an opponent. Ahhhhh, the old catch-all. So whatever happened on the Josh Hart play falls under 1 or 3. I can only go based on the description/argument in the other thread, and based on that, I guess you could review it but it's more than likely (1) if the officials saw it they didn't deem it excessive, (2) it'd be real hard to prove anything that would warrant a flagrant 1. On the other stuff--I saw Josh get poked in the face in the first half, and that'd almost certainly fall under something that's a foul, but not excessive. Just because you get hit in the face, it isn't automatically a flagrant and/or reviewable...otherwise there's be one after like every loose ball. Ochefu's foul on the lob--it looks bad/ends badly, but that's a not-uncommon hard foul that results from alley oop attempts that catch a defender off guard. He's turning around/backing up, but it'd be hard to prove he intentionally and unneccessarily low-bridged Ike in a bang bang situation. BTW, what was the deal with the play when Trawick saved the ball off Arcidiacano? Did they end up going with an inadvertant whistle? I can't see the lines in that corner, so based on the initial call I thought Brill had saved it off RA, but landed out of bounds and came back in and touched it. IDK what the takeaway here is: that we're unlucky to not have more guys get elbowed cleanly in the face?
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Jan 20, 2015 21:13:49 GMT -5
What exactly are we going to remember about this game a year from now? What a strange experience, but does it leave a lasting impression? On the trajectory of this season, you'd hope. But this game seems destined for the file marked "oh right, I forgot that happened" in the memory file. Is it fatigue? Maybe we used up all the energy at the ending of the Butler game (or getting drunk after the ending of the Butler game). This was incidentally the 8th victory under JTIII over a Top 5 ranked team, but it never felt so blah. Was it the blowout? I guess even I consigned this to the victory column with Brill hit a Grade A heat check to put us up 42-19. I just didn't see the fight in Nova last night--vintage Jay Wright would have been a lead pipe lock for a Rage Technical during our first half scoring run, so you gotta figure he knew things weren't right. Were we all distracted? The commentary online after the game mirrors the discussions in the stands. The discussion of the students was like this surreal three act play--"Why can't they get rid of the tarps? There are so many students here!" to "Where were these students all year?" to at the conclusion of the game...well, you've read the thread and seen the coach's postgame and read/seen all the commentator #hottakes. Between that and the weird-as-crap officiating, you'd have forgotten we were watching Georgetown destroy the #4 team in the country. Maybe it's Nova's fault, IDK. They're still on this "Most Anonymous Top Ten Team Ever" kick from last season. The record's great, and I've watched them work over some teams, but the schedule did them no favors, with Michigan and Syracuse being worse than expected, and the Big Five outside of Temple being kinda tragic this year. The only one of their games that stuck with me was their loss to Seton Hall, which is a good thing because at the beginning of last night's game I was thinking...hmmmm...reminds me of that start. What will stick with me is this: in a game that featured 51 combined fouls, we went 11 minutes in the first half without committing one. During that time, the game went from 4-4 to 30-11, and Villanova went 3-11 from the field with 6 turnovers. It's fair to say we've had some defensive struggles during the season, but it's impossible to argue we haven't improved a ton in January. Wow, all I can say is, it sure wasn't "blah" for me. The officials tried to make it unenjoyable in the second half, as I knew they would, but nope, I still enjoyed the hell out of it.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jan 20, 2015 21:21:08 GMT -5
Separate but related post-script to the previous...I meant to post this when it came out: KenPom did a blog post last month attempting to create a stat for which officials call the most/fewest fouls compared to "average". He tries to control for a whole bunch of relevant factors to get a good baseline of what you should expect in an average game compared to what went down. It's not perfect, but it's a good starting point, especially after a 51 foul game like last night when you're trying to determine whether Big East officials hate America and your sleep cycle. Least you get a sense for whether you had a traditionally foul happy crew. kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/ted_valentine_hates_to_call_foulsSo what's the bigger surprise: 1. One of the officials from last night, per the study, calls the fewest works games with the fewest fouls vs. the average in all of college basketball? 2. Second fewest is Ted Valentine?
|
|