SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,719
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 23, 2015 22:18:46 GMT -5
The problem with recent recruiting isn't the lack of All BE players... though it would be nice to have more than the 2 seasons of Otto and 3 of DSR out of the three classes.
The problem is the complete lack of league average or better seasons out of the same 3 classes. The below is based on value-add, so you need playing time to contribute, but a Power 5 level starter is roughly 3 pts of value add. Here's what we've gotten out of classes over their career for the last three and then classes overall:
Otto - 2 seasons Adams - 0 Greg - 0 Jabril - 2 Mikael - 0 DSR - 3 Bolden - 0 Hayes - 0 Cameron - 0 Smith - 1
That's 8 player-seasons out of 15 potential starter seasons. You could argue a couple of borderline seasons in there (Mikael's senior season, Jabril's junior year), but overall that's only 50% of the seasons.
2014 - 0 player-seasons to date 2013 - 0 player-seasons to date 2012 - 3 player-seasons to date 2011 - 4 player-seasons (including Josh Smith, who graduated with this class) 2010 - 3 player-seasons 2009 - 2 player-seasons 2008 - 6 player-seasons 2007 - 7 player-seasons 2006 - 3 player-seasons 2005 - 3 player-seasons (giving Jessie some benefit for the doubt his senior year) 2004 - 10 player-seasons (including Patrick Ewing, Jr., who graduated with this class)
We have had a star in most seasons... what we haven't put together for a long time is a starting lineup that is strong 1-5. Regardless of whether our counting is right on All BE... the classes in between 2011, which fizzled a bit, and 2014, which has potential but no breakout player yet, were bare except for DSR. That's an issue.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Mar 23, 2015 22:21:17 GMT -5
Confused - you said from Starks' class to Reggie's class - are we counting Kel's class or not? Anyway obviously the overall grade would be below average because of the misses. But we all know that, there is no dispute or mystery. Our recruiting needed a makeover, and it looks pretty clear that we have made the big jump that was needed. Ok great than we agree and both wasted the last hour of our lives… Cheers.. The conversation you responded to originally was referencing the Seniors that just left and the 2 upcoming Senior classes. That’s who I was talking about. Sorry On a side note obviously Markels class was also weak. YaBoy - everybody knows that we had multiple subpar recruiting years, I don't think anyone disagrees, so I just did not get your point in asking how people rated those years. So let me ask you - how do you rate this year's freshmen class? Next year's recruits? Do you agree that our recruiting has improved significantly?
|
|
dreamhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,259
|
Post by dreamhoya on Mar 23, 2015 22:49:47 GMT -5
This team will be really good next year.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,351
|
Post by calhoya on Mar 23, 2015 22:50:59 GMT -5
Imagine what the answers to this question would have been in 1980 or after the retirement of Big John. Who decides what is realistic? I believe that the expectations for this program are as high (or as low) as the Administration and the players establish. Invest in facilities, retain a competent staff, not just head coach, and recognize the value of the program in promoting the school. The Hoya program is located in a major metropolitan area which is a hotbed for basketball. The school is investing in upgraded facilities, has guaranteed national television exposure and a coach unafraid to schedule quality opponents. The program travels every year to tournaments in the offseason, offers academic support to players in need and has a willing basketball alumni network that shows up regularly to offer advice and assistance to the players. I do not see why this program cannot and should not strive to be a Top20 program every year. Anything less should not be accepted for any prolonged period of time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 23:45:50 GMT -5
Ok great than we agree and both wasted the last hour of our lives… Cheers.. The conversation you responded to originally was referencing the Seniors that just left and the 2 upcoming Senior classes. That’s who I was talking about. Sorry On a side note obviously Markels class was also weak. YaBoy - everybody knows that we had multiple subpar recruiting years, I don't think anyone disagrees, so I just did not get your point in asking how people rated those years. So let me ask you - how do you rate this year's freshmen class? Next year's recruits? Do you agree that our recruiting has improved significantly? Of course! It wasn’t exactly the point I was making tbh.. read my original post, It was about expectations. Considering that group of talent they performed very well. We won the BE with Mikael Hopkins and Lubick at center and no bench.. Performed well enough to earn a 2 seed. But the truth is it wasn’t exceptionally talented individually outside of a couple of players. That’s just being real. They came together as a unit and played through a great player having a monster run and did what nobody thought was possible after losing Greg and and starting so poorly in Conference. This group is better than Otto’s imo and incoming class is a great compliment. Love the way we’re recruiting right now, you know that Frazier. It was more about what you can expect than it was to knock anyone most of those kids outperformed their talent level. As recruiting improves you can expect results to improve and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by nyhoya2 on Mar 24, 2015 4:17:47 GMT -5
A few observations that I think are incremental.
1)Until this last page there's been little mention of the facilities with regard to expectations.
While the general tone of this thread is arguably more tempered expectations by most posters, the addition of the new facilities should raise the level of expectations for recruiting and player development. Coach has implied this himself in his support for the new facilities. The facilities is a notable (near accomplishment). As a quick aside, with the addition of the new facilities there should be an increased emphasis on player development. Most recently, Markel Starks commented on player development as a problem a year ago.
2)There's been a number of comments suggesting that the size of the fan base is a competitive disadvantage (certainly it may be vs. the state schools). What I don't think has been stated sufficiently is how much the repeated postseason disappointments have weighed on the fan base and extinguished some of the enthusiasm.
3)That leads to the final point. Disappointing postseason performances weigh on many of the expectations criteria that are listed in this thread. It certainly weighs on recruiting and the enthusiasm and support of the fan base.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,730
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 24, 2015 7:44:39 GMT -5
Lots of thoughts on the matter, but I'll defer to a prior voice on the expectations:
"The first commitment - that our students will receive our education and they will graduate; When I say our education, it means more than that they will graduate. It also means that they are prepared to live lives in which they will be leaders in their communities and businesses, lives in which they will be husbands and fathers, friends, and citizens. You accept this set of responsibilities that is grounded in our...tradition of Catholic and Jesuit education here on the Hilltop. (2) Secondly, that we do it honestly, that we be above reproach - that we must set the standard for integrity in intercollegiate athletics. And we do; (3) And finally, that we win. We keep score for a reason. Everyone has a better experience when we are winning." -John J. DeGioia
Another more pertinent question is what are the expectations for athletics in general. Excepting Villanova, there is not a single athletic program like Georgetown's in Division I: a broad based national program with significant investments in men's basketball and I-AA football, only without the kind of football money that could fund the rest of the department. GU has over 700 students participating across a range of sports from fully funded to those with little institutional support at all.
This board tends to ignore anything outside men's basketball (such as the downturns in women's basketball, football, and lacrosse) and that's understandable given that Georgetown seems uncomfortable promoting sports beyond basketball. But the answer is not, nor has it been, giving all the money to basketball. In some ways, basketball is probably overfunded but no one likes to say that. Of the top 10 basketball budgets in Division I, Georgetown ranks 8th of 10 in wins over the past 20 years and is one of just two of that top 10 without multiple Final Four appearances in the past 20 years.
Georgetown's spend on basketball is now more than UNC, Texas, Michigan State, UConn, or Maryland but can it continue to spend in this manner? Georgetown can't be Duke in one sport and Dartmouth in all the rest.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 24, 2015 7:54:08 GMT -5
Lots of thoughts on the matter, but I'll defer to a prior voice on the expectations: "The first commitment - that our students will receive our education and they will graduate; When I say our education, it means more than that they will graduate. It also means that they are prepared to live lives in which they will be leaders in their communities and businesses, lives in which they will be husbands and fathers, friends, and citizens. You accept this set of responsibilities that is grounded in our...tradition of Catholic and Jesuit education here on the Hilltop. (2) Secondly, that we do it honestly, that we be above reproach - that we must set the standard for integrity in intercollegiate athletics. And we do; (3) And finally, that we win. We keep score for a reason. Everyone has a better experience when we are winning." -John J. DeGioia Another more pertinent question is what are the expectations for athletics in general. Excepting Villanova, there is not a single athletic program like Georgetown's in Division I: a broad based national program with significant investments in men's basketball and I-AA football, only without the kind of football money that could fund the rest of the department. GU has over 700 students participating across a range of sports from fully funded to those with little institutional support at all. This board tends to ignore anything outside men's basketball (such as the downturns in women's basketball, football, and lacrosse) and that's understandable given that Georgetown seems uncomfortable promoting sports beyond basketball. But the answer is not, nor has it been, giving all the money to basketball. In some ways, basketball is probably overfunded but no one likes to say that. Of the top 10 basketball budgets in Division I, only two do not play I-A football. Georgetown's spend on basketball is now more than UNC, Texas, Michigan State, UConn, or Maryland but can it continue to spend in this manner? Georgetown can't be Duke in one sport and Dartmouth in all the rest. (And guess what: neither can Duke.) I think the answer is what it's essentially always been in the modern era: we're going to spend what it takes to be competitive nationally in basketball. In doing that, we're not going to do anything that is ostentatious, and we're going to ask things like "do we need to do that," which are questions the Kentuckys and Oregons of the world don't ask. But if we need to do it to give us the best chance to win, we're going to do it. And then, we're going to support the other sports to the best of our collective financial ability. You mention the sports that we've lost ground, but we've certainly gained ground on the nation in both soccer programs -- at a time when soccer is increasingly competitive. We've maintained our distance running excellence on a national level, though perhaps not at quite the same level it was at. Men's lacrosse seems to have turned a corner, and let's be real about women's lacrosse, we were a dominant player at a time when the Ivys were also dominant players. We could be Dartmouth! (Men's lacrosse continues to have a bit more of that feel, although it's eroding too.) If you put it in financial terms, my expectations for each program are to do what they've always done: punch above their financial level of support. Sure, some routinely don't get there, but most do.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Mar 24, 2015 9:46:19 GMT -5
YaBoy - everybody knows that we had multiple subpar recruiting years, I don't think anyone disagrees, so I just did not get your point in asking how people rated those years. So let me ask you - how do you rate this year's freshmen class? Next year's recruits? Do you agree that our recruiting has improved significantly? Of course! It wasn’t exactly the point I was making tbh.. read my original post, It was about expectations. Considering that group of talent they performed very well. We won the BE with Mikael Hopkins and Lubick at center and no bench.. Performed well enough to earn a 2 seed. But the truth is it wasn’t exceptionally talented individually outside of a couple of players. That’s just being real. They came together as a unit and played through a great player having a monster run and did what nobody thought was possible after losing Greg and and starting so poorly in Conference. This group is better than Otto’s imo and incoming class is a great compliment. Love the way we’re recruiting right now, you know that Frazier. It was more about what you can expect than it was to knock anyone most of those kids outperformed their talent level. As recruiting improves you can expect results to improve and vice versa. I do know you like our current recruiting, I was confused about the original post . I read it as a critique of our recruiting in general, which is why I countered. I should have known better, my bad. Your original post was right on then - although we tend to convince ourselves that every guy we recruit will become Otto, which has often heightened both the expectations and the subsequent disappointments.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 24, 2015 10:42:30 GMT -5
Georgetown's spend on basketball is now more than UNC, Texas, Michigan State, UConn, or Maryland but can it continue to spend in this manner? Is that really true, or is that a function of our Verizon Center rent being in the basketball budget and their campus arena costs being off the basketball budget?
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Mar 24, 2015 11:21:46 GMT -5
The problem with recent recruiting isn't the lack of All BE players... though it would be nice to have more than the 2 seasons of Otto and 3 of DSR out of the three classes. The problem is the complete lack of league average or better seasons out of the same 3 classes. The below is based on value-add, so you need playing time to contribute, but a Power 5 level starter is roughly 3 pts of value add. Here's what we've gotten out of classes over their career for the last three and then classes overall: Otto - 2 seasons Adams - 0 Greg - 0 Jabril - 2 Mikael - 0 DSR - 3 Bolden - 0 Hayes - 0 Cameron - 0 Smith - 1 That's 8 player-seasons out of 15 potential starter seasons. You could argue a couple of borderline seasons in there (Mikael's senior season, Jabril's junior year), but overall that's only 50% of the seasons. 2014 - 0 player-seasons to date 2013 - 0 player-seasons to date 2012 - 3 player-seasons to date 2011 - 4 player-seasons (including Josh Smith, who graduated with this class) 2010 - 3 player-seasons 2009 - 2 player-seasons 2008 - 6 player-seasons 2007 - 7 player-seasons 2006 - 3 player-seasons 2005 - 3 player-seasons (giving Jessie some benefit for the doubt his senior year) 2004 - 10 player-seasons (including Patrick Ewing, Jr., who graduated with this class) We have had a star in most seasons... what we haven't put together for a long time is a starting lineup that is strong 1-5. Regardless of whether our counting is right on All BE... the classes in between 2011, which fizzled a bit, and 2014, which has potential but no breakout player yet, were bare except for DSR. That's an issue. This is spot on. There have just been too many misses/disappointments in the last 5 years recruiting-wise (2009-13 classes). Domingo and Reggie Cameron stand out right now as big misses. Both were top 100 recruits, and both haven't been able to do what their elite skill was supposed to be (and that's even leaving aside Tyler who counts as a miss based on obviously extenuating circumstances). We got little from some of our three-star recruits, (i.e., Moses, Bolden, Vee Sanford, Benimon, and Bradley Hayes to this point), with Aaron Bowen probably being the only one who turned into a solid contributor, and even that only really in his last year. We've also gotten less than we expected out of Nate Lubick, Greg W., and probably Josh Smith. So that means 5 years of only a few hits, some misses with highly ranked recruits, and pretty much no one coming out of the 3-star range to be a real significant player. That's not good enough, but hopefully it's in the past. It looks like we have four guys that will end up being clear contributors, and we'll see if Trey can join them. Tre also gives me a lot of hope, because he's a 3-star player that looks to be a lot better than he was billed. Hopefully that's a sign that our talent/fit evaluation is improved, and that going forward, we'll be more likely to get a 3-star who plays like a 4-star than a 4-star who plays like a 2-star.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Mar 24, 2015 11:57:26 GMT -5
ded to those with little institutional support at all. This board tends to ignore anything outside men's basketball (such as the downturns in women's basketball, football, and lacrosse) and that's understandable given that Georgetown seems uncomfortable promoting sports beyond basketball. But the answer is not, nor has it been, giving all the money to basketball. In some ways, basketball is probably overfunded but no one likes to say that. Of the top 10 basketball budgets in Division I, Georgetown ranks 8th of 10 in wins over the past 20 years and is one of just two of that top 10 without multiple Final Four appearances in the past 20 years. "Multiple Final Fours" is a very strange benchmark. I think wins is a valid one though, and there are plenty of structural reasons why we're spending what we are but aren't Duke or UNC. Why not? And are we really "Dartmouth in all the rest" if cross-country and soccer are outstanding and we're in the top 25 of the President's Cup for both sexes? Or are we just bemoaning football here, which really should be de-emphasized if not shuttered completely.
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Mar 24, 2015 12:15:41 GMT -5
On the question of assessing whether we are going to be better next year.
Backcourt Starters
Junior DSR and Senior Jabril vs. Sophomore Tre and Senior DSR. This is close, but I give the edge to Soph Tre and Senior DSR. I think Tre will blossom next year and I think more than make up for Jabril's departure.
Frontcourt Starters
Senior Smith, Freshman Peak, Freshman Copeland vs. Freshman Govan, Sophomore Peak, Sophomore Copeland. Edge to Govan/Peak/Copeland. If Govan is legit and prime time, than this obviously becomes a huge edge.
Reserves
Freshman White vs. Sophomore White - Clearly take Sophomore White Senior Hopkins vs. Junior Akoy - Have no idea. Toss up? Senior Bowen vs. Freshman Kaleb/Freshman Derrickson - Edge to Bowen N/A vs. Freshman Tre - no replacement for Tre off the bench. Wild Cards: Reggie Cameron, Bradley Hayes
Reaction to Above.
Good chance we will have a stronger starting unit overall. Our bench will be shorter and potentially weaker. We have no guard depth.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,438
|
Post by lichoya68 on Mar 24, 2015 12:24:58 GMT -5
FINAL FOUR yup
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 12:41:14 GMT -5
On the question of assessing whether we are going to be better next year. Backcourt Starters Junior DSR and Senior Jabril vs. Sophomore Tre and Senior DSR. This is close, but I give the edge to Soph Tre and Senior DSR. I think Tre will blossom next year and I think more than make up for Jabril's departure. Frontcourt Starters Senior Smith, Freshman Peak, Freshman Copeland vs. Freshman Govan, Sophomore Peak, Sophomore Copeland. Edge to Govan/Peak/Copeland. If Govan is legit and prime time, than this obviously becomes a huge edge. Reserves Freshman White vs. Sophomore White - Clearly take Sophomore White Senior Hopkins vs. Junior Akoy - Have no idea. Toss up? Senior Bowen vs. Freshman Kaleb/Freshman Derrickson - Edge to Bowen N/A vs. Freshman Tre - no replacement for Tre off the bench. Wild Cards: Reggie Cameron, Bradley Hayes Reaction to Above. Good chance we will have a stronger starting unit overall. Our bench will be shorter and potentially weaker. We have no guard depth. . I don’t see anyway Tre starts next year, we need to have a guard coming off the bench. Imo it’s more likely you see LJ at the 2 Ike and White 3 and 4 and Govan/Hayes 5
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,924
|
Post by NCHoya on Mar 24, 2015 12:44:54 GMT -5
On the question of assessing whether we are going to be better next year. Backcourt Starters Junior DSR and Senior Jabril vs. Sophomore Tre and Senior DSR. This is close, but I give the edge to Soph Tre and Senior DSR. I think Tre will blossom next year and I think more than make up for Jabril's departure. Frontcourt Starters Senior Smith, Freshman Peak, Freshman Copeland vs. Freshman Govan, Sophomore Peak, Sophomore Copeland. Edge to Govan/Peak/Copeland. If Govan is legit and prime time, than this obviously becomes a huge edge. Reserves Freshman White vs. Sophomore White - Clearly take Sophomore White Senior Hopkins vs. Junior Akoy - Have no idea. Toss up? Senior Bowen vs. Freshman Kaleb/Freshman Derrickson - Edge to Bowen N/A vs. Freshman Tre - no replacement for Tre off the bench. Wild Cards: Reggie Cameron, Bradley Hayes Reaction to Above. Good chance we will have a stronger starting unit overall. Our bench will be shorter and potentially weaker. We have no guard depth. It is so difficult to compare the 4 & 5 position for next season. We literally have no idea what to expect from Govan, Derrickson, Hayes and Agau. We only need one or two to be a positive player, but who knows. I really beleive this team is going to play so different next season it will be hard to compare. We are getting back to our pre-2013 teams which featured mobile versatile players capable of hitting jumpshots, passing and moving without the ball. No more 4 against 5 when we are on offense. I think we will be very dynamic on offense, perhaps approaching that 2010 team. However, defensively we could take step back without a Hopkins like presence and Jabril. White/Copeland need to come back much stronger, more capable rebounders and physical defenders. Perhaps Agau can provide some defensive presence? Not sure.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Mar 24, 2015 12:51:42 GMT -5
On the question of assessing whether we are going to be better next year. Backcourt Starters Junior DSR and Senior Jabril vs. Sophomore Tre and Senior DSR. This is close, but I give the edge to Soph Tre and Senior DSR. I think Tre will blossom next year and I think more than make up for Jabril's departure. Frontcourt Starters Senior Smith, Freshman Peak, Freshman Copeland vs. Freshman Govan, Sophomore Peak, Sophomore Copeland. Edge to Govan/Peak/Copeland. If Govan is legit and prime time, than this obviously becomes a huge edge. Reserves Freshman White vs. Sophomore White - Clearly take Sophomore White Senior Hopkins vs. Junior Akoy - Have no idea. Toss up? Senior Bowen vs. Freshman Kaleb/Freshman Derrickson - Edge to Bowen N/A vs. Freshman Tre - no replacement for Tre off the bench. Wild Cards: Reggie Cameron, Bradley Hayes Reaction to Above. Good chance we will have a stronger starting unit overall. Our bench will be shorter and potentially weaker. We have no guard depth. . I don’t see anyway Tre starts next year, we need to have a guard coming off the bench. Imo it’s more likely you see LJ at the 2 Ike and White 3 and 4 and Govan/Hayes 5 I am hoping that "Senior Bowen vs. Freshman Kaleb/Freshman Derrickson - Edge to Bowen" is incorrect or at least gets reversed by tournament time next year. Seems to me that our offense will be better, although we are going to miss some of Jabril's timely 3s. Defense looks like it may suffer a bit without Hopkins and Jabril, and even Bowen doing spot duty guarding some of the tougher opponents. Sincerely hope Ike and Paul (and LJ) work on their undeerstanding of the D in the offseason.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,719
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 24, 2015 12:58:00 GMT -5
I'm with NC. I think the assumption that we are going to be significantly better next year is a difficult one.
People here like to crap on Josh, and I understand that his inability to not foul was frustrating. But he was our second best offensive player and he was the only player who brought a new offensive dimension to the team. We had no post offense without him, and no one on our team drew the doubles and created open shots for others like him. His defensive deficiencies were overstated as well.
I like Govan's game, but I find it highly unlikely that he can equal Josh's offensive production on a minute by minute basis. The best hope is that the center "monster" of Agau, Govan and Hayes (and I suppose Derrickson?) can somehow equal or better the Hopkins/Smith combination. I know people here had unnatural love for Hopkins, but if the center position is better next year, it'll be because it can convert the easy baskets and not foul. Not because Govan is a better offensive player than Smith.
The big issue that comes with that is who is going to be a similar offensive option? Copeland showed flashes, but was far from a freshman star in the vein of Freeman, Monroe or Porter. White is a facilitator and glue guy, not a creator. Tre's value was mostly in his shot this year, not driving and dishing. Peak's ability to create will be largely dependent on a step change in shooting.
Someone could emerge from there, but there's a real chance that this team will need to win through strong defense and opportunistic team play. That can be a good team, but that's not much of a difference recipe from this year.
Of course, the freshman class could all step up; Govan could be an overachiever and Marcus and Kaleb could replace our depth and this team could be really good. But the freshmen weren't as good as Trawick and Smith this year; people will need to improve.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,374
|
Post by drquigley on Mar 24, 2015 13:09:22 GMT -5
I'm with NC. I think the assumption that we are going to be significantly better next year is a difficult one. People here like to crap on Josh, and I understand that his inability to not foul was frustrating. But he was our second best offensive player and he was the only player who brought a new offensive dimension to the team. We had no post offense without him, and no one on our team drew the doubles and created open shots for others like him. His defensive deficiencies were overstated as well. I like Govan's game, but I find it highly unlikely that he can equal Josh's offensive production on a minute by minute basis. The best hope is that the center "monster" of Agau, Govan and Hayes (and I suppose Derrickson?) can somehow equal or better the Hopkins/Smith combination. I know people here had unnatural love for Hopkins, but if the center position is better next year, it'll be because it can convert the easy baskets and not foul. Not because Govan is a better offensive player than Smith. The big issue that comes with that is who is going to be a similar offensive option? Copeland showed flashes, but was far from a freshman star in the vein of Freeman, Monroe or Porter. White is a facilitator and glue guy, not a creator. Tre's value was mostly in his shot this year, not driving and dishing. Peak's ability to create will be largely dependent on a step change in shooting. Someone could emerge from there, but there's a real chance that this team will need to win through strong defense and opportunistic team play. That can be a good team, but that's not much of a difference recipe from this year. Of course, the freshman class could all step up; Govan could be an overachiever and Marcus and Kaleb could replace our depth and this team could be really good. But the freshmen weren't as good as Trawick and Smith this year; people will need to improve. I couldn't disagree more. One month into next season and Josh Smith will be a Lubick-like memory. You can't write off his defensive liabilities with his occasional offensive contributions. Do you realize that while we were blowing out EWU Josh was on the bench the entire time? No, I share the opinion that Josh is what Josh was, a big, unathletic guy who was never a natural bball player. His size made him useful at times but had Tyler Adams been healthy he would never have been offered a GU scholarship.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Mar 24, 2015 13:36:37 GMT -5
The big issue that comes with that is who is going to be a similar offensive option? Copeland showed flashes, but was far from a freshman star in the vein of Freeman, Monroe or Porter. I'm an enormous Copeland homer but I think it's Copeland or bust and his development is the key to this team next season. He's not that far behind freshman Otto. In BE games, Porter played 529 minutes, and Copeland 479 (Copeland in 3 extra games). On overall offensive rating, Copeland isn't stellar: 106.0 to 112.5. But Copeland scored more points (173 to 171) on a better eFG (53.6 to 52.6). The A/TO gap isn't huge (18/28 for Copeland and 25/24 for Otto). The big gap in ORating I think is actually created by Otto's advantage on the offensive glass (42 to 22). But if you're just comparing freshman Otto to freshman Copeland in terms of ability to be a lead scorer, the edge goes to Copeland. Copeland also wins on DR% (21.0 to 19.3). The two big issues of course are that sophomore Porter's development was way beyond any reasonable extrapolation from freshman Porter's play; and Copeland's behind in several other areas, first and foremost that Otto had a gift for being in passing lanes and Copeland, to put it lightly, doesn't. But Copeland doesn't have to be sophomore Otto Porter. The supporting cast will be vastly better next year than it was in 2013 at pretty much every position.
|
|