SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,734
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 25, 2015 12:30:57 GMT -5
I think we will be better next year, but I think it depends on a few things: - Freshman honing their shots. Copeland, White and Tre all can be 40% 3 point shooters. LJ can be a 36% shooter. If they get there, this team could be very good. Fact is, in today's game, 3 point shooting is a must and we don't have much proven shooting beyond DSR. Also would throw Cameron and Derrikson into that mix. I think we need at least 3 guys on the floor at all times who are legitimate 3-point threats. Agree. We need defensive development -- especially from the big men. But I do think the defensive prowess of Trawick, Bowen and Hopkins is a bit overrated. They made a lot of good plays and certainly did not get lost as often as Ike, for example, but they fouled the heck out of everyone, especially the latter two plus Smith. There's upside on defense. That said, while there's a ton of defensive potential there, there's also a huge amount of learning how to play together that needs to occur. The freshmen never really clicked on D. It's a big jump. Smith played half the time. I'm no Hopkins fan, but I will be fairly shocked if we are better at the five next year. Cameron can't play guard. He's not quick enough defensively nor is his handle good enough. We will play primarily three guards -- Peak, Campbell and DSR with Johnson hopefully being good enough to play some minutes. Paul White in a disaster scenario. Perhaps a fifth year transfer. But barring the last or Kaleb being as strong as I hope... we may just be running a 3 man guard rotation a lot. Offensively, we're going to be missing low post play. I suppose Govan could bring it, but I suspect he won't bring what Josh brought. That means we lose one way to create doubles/create scoring. We also lose two of our better offensive rebounders, though I suspect Hayes may be as good as Hopkins on that front. My concern is how does this team score? There are only so many ways. I agree that shooting is so key because it will open up other avenues, but... 1. Outside Shooting - Maybe 2. Dribble Drive - Largely contingent on whether players like Peak can establish the outside shot 3. Low Post Play - Unlikely to be better than this year 4. Offensive Rebounding - Probably not better than this year 5. Motion/Pick n Roll - Our "easy" baskets never seemed to click this year; partly because teams could pack it in, partially because we didn't seem crisp on execution and partially because we had a big who struggled to convert at the rim. Partially dependent on #1. 6. Fast Break/Offense to Defense - Execution is pretty strong and should continue (though Trawick was REALLY good here) but there have to be concerns about creation of opportunities. Unless the defense gets better at creating turnovers, this will only appear as a weapon against generally worse teams. Defensive rebounding could be suspect with new centers as well. The offense doesn't feel better next year, unless a ton of improvement occurs. Peak & Copeland need to improve at #1; Copeland and Tre at #2, the whole team at #5. Number 6 is reliant on a turnover-creating defense -- perhaps we can press more, but many of our steals came from Smith and Hopkins...
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,812
|
Post by hoyazeke on Mar 25, 2015 12:44:14 GMT -5
I think we are arguing over more solid and showed more potential. Otto was more solid but Ike shows more potential than freshman Otto. I don't remember an Xavier type game with Otto in which he just took over offensively. I remember dependable 8pts and 8rbs. Otto's freshman year was better because with Ike you get the 3pt (1-7) and 1rb game but I don't think even had a 20pt game in him his freshman year.
|
|
b52legend
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 453
|
Post by b52legend on Mar 25, 2015 12:46:10 GMT -5
My concern is how does this team score? There are only so many ways. I agree that shooting is so key because it will open up other avenues, but... 1. Outside Shooting - Maybe 2. Dribble Drive - Largely contingent on whether players like Peak can establish the outside shot 3. Low Post Play - Unlikely to be better than this year 4. Offensive Rebounding - Probably not better than this year 5. Motion/Pick n Roll - Our "easy" baskets never seemed to click this year; partly because teams could pack it in, partially because we didn't seem crisp on execution and partially because we had a big who struggled to convert at the rim. Partially dependent on #1. 6. Fast Break/Offense to Defense - Execution is pretty strong and should continue (though Trawick was REALLY good here) but there have to be concerns about creation of opportunities. Unless the defense gets better at creating turnovers, this will only appear as a weapon against generally worse teams. Defensive rebounding could be suspect with new centers as well. The offense doesn't feel better next year, unless a ton of improvement occurs. Peak & Copeland need to improve at #1; Copeland and Tre at #2, the whole team at #5. Number 6 is reliant on a turnover-creating defense -- perhaps we can press more, but many of our steals came from Smith and Hopkins... Good points. I didn't mean to imply that we'll be better at the 5 than we were this year, but I think we can win with serviceable contributions at that position. I am interested to see what Derrikson brings to the table on offense (likely at the 4 but maybe at the 5 depending on matchups). If he develops, he brings a type of play that I think fits in perfectly to JT3s system but we haven't ever really had. I'm a little surprised that JT3 hasn't ever gone after a Euro big man as I think that skill set would fit perfectly into his scheme (Perhaps the problem is that guys typically don't develop into those types of players until their mid-twenties). In particular a pick who can shoot gives you better pick n roll action and better back door action. I would love to see some analytics of Josh's positioning on offence, but he was often at the top of the key where, aside from a dive to the hoop, he was zero threat to score. A big who can shoot that shot puts a ridiculous amount of pressure on the defense.
|
|
|
Post by westendhoya on Mar 25, 2015 12:59:58 GMT -5
Before I descend into my summer hibernation, I have a couple questions for the board: 1. Do you think the 15/16 Hoyas will be a better team, equivalent, or worse team than the 14/15 team? 2. Will they be ranked in the preseason? By the end of the season? With my delusions of grandeur for this team crushed, I've realized I can't trust my optimism for next years squad. And I'm really optimistic right now, so I need some perspective here. I look at the promising freshmen class playing as sophomores and my delusions start developing. DSR returning for his senior year? oh yeah.... And the handcuffs finally coming off of Bradley "Mr. March" Hayes, I am getting giddy. Add a stud freshman center to back him up and I am now guessing that next years team will be far superior to the 14/15 team. If the premise that next years team should be better is true, then it would be reasonable to expect significant time in the rankings and increased chances for a longer run in the tourney. All this has me already looking to the future with a I am not a perma-optomist when it comes to the team, but I believe next year will be JT3's best all-around team. What that means as far as March I don't know but I think we are going to see a level of complete basketball we have not seen before (yes even including 2007).
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 25, 2015 13:22:36 GMT -5
I think we are arguing over more solid and showed more potential. Otto was more solid but Ike shows more potential than freshman Otto. I don't remember an Xavier type game with Otto in which he just took over offensively. I remember dependable 8pts and 8rbs. Otto's freshman year was better because with Ike you get the 3pt (1-7) and 1rb game but I don't think even had a 20pt game in him his freshman year. They keep these stats on the internet, you know. 2011-12 wasn't so long ago that you couldn't look up Otto's stats. Otto had 20 pts in the first game of the BET against Pitt (so he scored 20 points in as many games as Isaac did). He had 19 in the final regular season game (a loss) to Marquette (Isaac's second highest point total was 17) and 16 in the win over Belmont. He also had three double-doubles--14 & 14 at L'Ville, 13 & 10 against SJU, 14 & 13 against Cuse. He also had a sweet mid-range jump shot, and it was pretty clear that if he could extend his range that he would be a really good offensive player, since he efficiently averaged almost 10 points a game without a three point shot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 16:21:50 GMT -5
I have what is probably a simpler answer. I will start with a simple question. What was our biggest shortcoming that stood out this past year??? It was the lack of consistent 3 point shooting. You can talk all you want about the other issues, but in my humble opinion our success next year starts and ends our ability to shoo the three
|
|
beenaround
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,473
|
Post by beenaround on Mar 25, 2015 16:52:49 GMT -5
Before I descend into my summer hibernation, I have a couple questions for the board: 1. Do you think the 15/16 Hoyas will be a better team, equivalent, or worse team than the 14/15 team? 2. Will they be ranked in the preseason? By the end of the season? With my delusions of grandeur for this team crushed, I've realized I can't trust my optimism for next years squad. And I'm really optimistic right now, so I need some perspective here. I look at the promising freshmen class playing as sophomores and my delusions start developing. DSR returning for his senior year? oh yeah.... And the handcuffs finally coming off of Bradley "Mr. March" Hayes, I am getting giddy. Add a stud freshman center to back him up and I am now guessing that next years team will be far superior to the 14/15 team. If the premise that next years team should be better is true, then it would be reasonable to expect significant time in the rankings and increased chances for a longer run in the tourney. All this has me already looking to the future with a I am not a perma-optomist when it comes to the team, but I believe next year will be JT3's best all-around team. What that means as far as March I don't know but I think we are going to see a level of complete basketball we have not seen before (yes even including 2007). Whoa. That team had a frontcourt with five guys who played some minutes in the NBA, including an All Star center and a respected NBA starter. Also had the best shooter in the JT3 era (not sure what the stats say...but our eyeballs loved Wallace) and good guards in Sapp and , defensively, Rivers. I am going to bet next year's team is NOT that good.
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,326
|
Post by vv83 on Mar 25, 2015 16:53:20 GMT -5
I have what is probably a simpler answer. I will start with a simple question. What was our biggest shortcoming that stood out this past year??? It was the lack of consistent 3 point shooting. You can talk all you want about the other issues, but in my humble opinion our success next year starts and ends our ability to shoo the three Exactly. Offensive basketball today is more dependent on outside shooting than ever. It is very tough to win games if you are not hitting 3s. And it is very easy to get beaten by a lesser team if they get red hot from outside. Most teams are building their entire offenses around the "layups, 3s, and foul shots" philosophy. Most defenses still give up the open 3 before they give up the layup. The increasingly prevalent Pack Line style defenses try to limit offenses to contested 3s. so if you can't knock down 3s, your offense is going to struggle DSR was our only good volume outside shooter was DSR. Jabril shot real well, but only chose to shoot when he was wide open. Campbell shot pretty well in limited playing time. Copeland was OK, but also in limited volume. Derrickson is a really good 3 point shooter. Govan seems to be a solid foul line extended shooter. If they both shoot anywhere near the way they did in high school, it will open up our offense a lot. More than anything, however - we need Peak and White to knock down open 3s. They both have funky shot mechanics that seem to make them streaky from outside. They need to spend the hours in the gym, aiming for the kind of improvement that Jabril achieved in their outside shooting.
|
|
|
Post by daytonahoya31 on Mar 25, 2015 17:20:33 GMT -5
I happen to think this team will be a ton better next season, like top 10, 2 seed good.
And my reasoning is simple. You win in college basketball with talent. And while there's a ton of analysis on this thread, I don't see anyone acknowledging the following: Next years team will have NBA talent. In five years, there will be multiple players from next years team playing in the league.
We will have
1) one of the top 4-5 point guards in college basketball (and he's not even one of the guys I expect to be playing in the league) 2) One of the top inside-outside threats in college basketball 3) A versatile, ball-handling, passing wing 4) a scoring shooting guard 5) A very good point guard off the bench 6) depth at both positions brought by the freshman class. (Those of you questioning whether Govan can play right away, probably haven't seen him extensively. I have questions about him defensively, but there's zero question in my mind that he can step in and score right away. His game is refined for his age) 7) And most important to me. There will be few lineups that III can put out there where I automatically look at it and think "sheesh, how does this five score?"....Trawick and Bowen and Hopkins were all good kids and I appreciated them, but they were all thrust in roles in their careers greater than their talent dictated. Only Bril ended his career as one who wasn't a liability on the offensive end. We won't see that next year, by and large
Next years team will be very very very talented. If we gel, play good defense, have good chemistry, it has the potential to be special
|
|
|
Post by daytonahoya31 on Mar 25, 2015 17:22:56 GMT -5
I am not a perma-optomist when it comes to the team, but I believe next year will be JT3's best all-around team. What that means as far as March I don't know but I think we are going to see a level of complete basketball we have not seen before (yes even including 2007). Whoa. That team had a frontcourt with five guys who played some minutes in the NBA, including an All Star center and a respected NBA starter. Also had the best shooter in the JT3 era (not sure what the stats say...but our eyeballs loved Wallace) and good guards in Sapp and , defensively, Rivers. I am going to bet next year's team is NOT that good. Next years team has a chance to be better than any team III has had outside of the 2007 team, no question in my mind. I won't say it will be AS good as the 2007, because Roy made that team special defensively with his lane clogging and rim protection. Next years team won't have that kind of a defender, but it WILL have that kind of overall talent.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,734
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 25, 2015 22:23:23 GMT -5
I happen to think this team will be a ton better next season, like top 10, 2 seed good. And my reasoning is simple. You win in college basketball with talent. And while there's a ton of analysis on this thread, I don't see anyone acknowledging the following: Next years team will have NBA talent. In five years, there will be multiple players from next years team playing in the league. We will have 1) one of the top 4-5 point guards in college basketball (and he's not even one of the guys I expect to be playing in the league) 2) One of the top inside-outside threats in college basketball 3) A versatile, ball-handling, passing wing 4) a scoring shooting guard 5) A very good point guard off the bench 6) depth at both positions brought by the freshman class. (Those of you questioning whether Govan can play right away, probably haven't seen him extensively. I have questions about him defensively, but there's zero question in my mind that he can step in and score right away. His game is refined for his age) 7) And most important to me. There will be few lineups that III can put out there where I automatically look at it and think "sheesh, how does this five score?"....Trawick and Bowen and Hopkins were all good kids and I appreciated them, but they were all thrust in roles in their careers greater than their talent dictated. Only Bril ended his career as one who wasn't a liability on the offensive end. We won't see that next year, by and large Next years team will be very very very talented. If we gel, play good defense, have good chemistry, it has the potential to be special Copeland is an NBA player and I think both Peak and White have a pretty good shot. Govan, too, of course, given the size. Talent will out, but I don't know if it completely outs next year. Peak and White weren't really plus players this last year and while they should improve, most of these players need to improve significantly. They have the talent to do so. But will they? I do agree with your last point. I will not miss the all-defense lineups.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Mar 26, 2015 6:22:26 GMT -5
I will actually not be shocked if we are better at the 5. After HAL and Hop years the last couple of seasons I think we tend to overrate our 5 spot this year which was "head in the oven, feet in the icebox" average. We had two players who both fouled a ton, neither of whom could face up or hit a jumper, but one was a force in low post offense and the other our best defender. That's good but not that difficult to surpass.
Put it this way, I think there's a decent chance a Govan/White rotation could be less volatile on defense but of similar quality and more diverse and effective offensively. That's before we even talk about Hayes.
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,333
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 26, 2015 7:17:37 GMT -5
I really think we are expecting a lot if we think Govan is going to come in and be a solid contributor Day 1. Recruiting grades are not the end-all-be-all, but someone with Govan's ranking generally does not become an impact player right away. Obviously it depends on the team situation, but look at similarly ranked big men of last year's class, and then look at their production this year.
Govan being in the Top 50 may be deceiving, because while only being separated by 20-40 spots with elite recruits as far the rankings, the drop off is huge in that range. You go from guys who are of the Greg Monroe ilk, to (maybe) a guy of Daniel Ochefu's level.
I'd love for Govan to come in and solidify the 5 immediately, but I'm tempering my expectations and expecting some growing pains at the position with him or Hayes. As much vitriol as Josh and Hop got, we are probably underestimating their contribution and overestimating the ability of a teenager and a guy who's sat on our bench for 3 years, to be a better combo. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised though...
Also - if we are having to play White at the 5, then things have not gone to plan and we are probably struggling...
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,846
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 26, 2015 8:16:04 GMT -5
I really think we are expecting a lot if we think Govan is going to come in and be a solid contributor day 1. Recruiting grades are not the end all-be-all, but someone with Govan's ranking generally does not become an impact player right away. Obviously it depends on the team situation, but look at similarly ranked big men of last years class, and then look at their production this year. Govan being in the Top 50 may be deceiving, because while only being separated by 20-40 spots with elite recruits as far rankings, the drop off is huge in that range. You go from guys who are of the Greg Monroe ilk, to (maybe) a guy of Daniel Ochefu's level. I'd love for Govan to come in and solidify the 5 immediately, but I'm tempering my expectations and expecting some growing pains at the position with him or Hayes. As much vitriol as Josh and Hop got, we are probably underestimating their contribution and overestimating the ability of a teenager and a guy who's sat on our bench for 3 years, to be a better combo. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised though... If Govan and/or Hayes aren't contributing next season I hope the staff gives Derrickson a chance at the 5 spot, he may be able to truly open up the floor on offense.. Plus he's the perfect pick n pop player.. Butler thrived with a front court of Woods, Chrabacz & Jones, why can't G'town do well with Copes, White & Derrickson? especially if the O is bogging down..
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Mar 26, 2015 8:28:06 GMT -5
I really think we are expecting a lot if we think Govan is going to come in and be a solid contributor day 1. Recruiting grades are not the end all-be-all, but someone with Govan's ranking generally does not become an impact player right away. Obviously it depends on the team situation, but look at similarly ranked big men of last years class, and then look at their production this year. Govan being in the Top 50 may be deceiving, because while only being separated by 20-40 spots with elite recruits as far rankings, the drop off is huge in that range. You go from guys who are of the Greg Monroe ilk, to (maybe) a guy of Daniel Ochefu's level. I'd love for Govan to come in and solidify the 5 immediately, but I'm tempering my expectations and expecting some growing pains at the position with him or Hayes. As much vitriol as Josh and Hop got, we are probably underestimating their contribution and overestimating the ability of a teenager and a guy who's sat on our bench for 3 years, to be a better combo. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised though... If Govan and/or Hayes aren't contributing next season I hope the staff gives Derrickson a chance at the 5 spot, he may be able to truly open up the floor on offense.. Plus he's the perfect pick n pop player.. Butler thrived with a front court of Woods, Chrabacz & Jones, why can't G'town do well with Copes, White & Derrickson? especially if the O is bogging down.. Yeah we seem to always think we need the most perfect player to win. Hop is a 5 and 6 guy who plays good but flawed defense by fouling too much. That doesn't seem like production impossible for a highly-rated freshman to replace almost 1 for 1. Josh is another story. What replaces him will be much different but will it be better or worse? We'll see.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,924
Member is Online
|
Post by NCHoya on Mar 26, 2015 8:58:12 GMT -5
Agree with daveg, many of the more optimistic projections for next season rely on a borderline Top 50 recruit in Govan to be BE good. Big men develop more slowly than gaurds and it is not like we are asking Govan to defend and rebound, we are talking about him being a viable offensive threat. There are only so many Angel Delgado's out there. Maybe he is able to do it, but I am just not sure. I am hoping we are dramatically under-estimating Akoy Agau who will be in his 3rd year of major D1 basketball by the time he steps on the court in mid-December.
Despite that, I am on the cautiously optimistic side. I think we are all suffering from watching several key players not improve year over year as expected - Lubick, Hopkins, Moses, Bowen all improved in subtle ways, but never took a big step up in production. That history is keeping some of us pessimistic about the jump our 4 Freshmen will make. Personally, the talent is so obvious with these 4 guys, I can see them making big strides next season which I think is where the optimism is coming from. I think you can make a line-up that does not have a great 5 work. Again, we need to shoot and move with purpose, in year 2, the frosh should be more ready to do that.
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,812
|
Post by hoyazeke on Mar 26, 2015 9:37:51 GMT -5
I think we are arguing over more solid and showed more potential. Otto was more solid but Ike shows more potential than freshman Otto. I don't remember an Xavier type game with Otto in which he just took over offensively. I remember dependable 8pts and 8rbs. Otto's freshman year was better because with Ike you get the 3pt (1-7) and 1rb game but I don't think even had a 20pt game in him his freshman year. They keep these stats on the internet, you know. 2011-12 wasn't so long ago that you couldn't look up Otto's stats. Otto had 20 pts in the first game of the BET against Pitt (so he scored 20 points in as many games as Isaac did). He had 19 in the final regular season game (a loss) to Marquette (Isaac's second highest point total was 17) and 16 in the win over Belmont. He also had three double-doubles--14 & 14 at L'Ville, 13 & 10 against SJU, 14 & 13 against Cuse. He also had a sweet mid-range jump shot, and it was pretty clear that if he could extend his range that he would be a really good offensive player, since he efficiently averaged almost 10 points a game without a three point shot. Exactly my point TBird. Did you remember those games or did you google for stats? My guess would be that Otto had 8 in the 1st half and 12 in the second. 6-8 of those pts off putbacks and with most of those points mixed in around shots from Jason, Hollis and Hank. Ike scored around 10pts in a row against Xavier. He was a one man show for about 5mins. Maybe I'm just caught in the moment but what I remember from that season was Hollis' shot at Bama and Otto's miss against NCST.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 26, 2015 9:51:33 GMT -5
They keep these stats on the internet, you know. 2011-12 wasn't so long ago that you couldn't look up Otto's stats. Otto had 20 pts in the first game of the BET against Pitt (so he scored 20 points in as many games as Isaac did). He had 19 in the final regular season game (a loss) to Marquette (Isaac's second highest point total was 17) and 16 in the win over Belmont. He also had three double-doubles--14 & 14 at L'Ville, 13 & 10 against SJU, 14 & 13 against Cuse. He also had a sweet mid-range jump shot, and it was pretty clear that if he could extend his range that he would be a really good offensive player, since he efficiently averaged almost 10 points a game without a three point shot. Exactly my point TBird. Did you remember those games or did you google for stats? My guess would be that Otto had 8 in the 1st half and 12 in the second. 6-8 of those pts off putbacks and with most of those points mixed in around shots from Jason, Hollis and Hank. Ike scored around 10pts in a row against Xavier. He was a one man show for about 5mins. Maybe I'm just caught in the moment but what I remember from that season was Hollis' shot at Bama and Otto's miss against NCST. Sounds like you don't remember those games. Not sure why I should give any credence to your description of Otto's performances when you yourself state that you don't remember the games. In fact, you were already wrong about whether Otto scored 20 points in a game. My stats (which, are, of course, a record of what actually happened, rather than a conjecture based on a human being's faulty memory) show that he scored 20 points against Pitt in the BET and 19 at Marquette. Isaac, with all his potential, only scored that many points in one game, while Otto did it twice, without a three point shot. If anything, Otto's potential should have been more obvious to you, since all he had to do to become great was extend his jumper from mid-range to the 3 point line. Everything else was already there.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Mar 26, 2015 10:41:01 GMT -5
Exactly my point TBird. Did you remember those games or did you google for stats? My guess would be that Otto had 8 in the 1st half and 12 in the second. 6-8 of those pts off putbacks and with most of those points mixed in around shots from Jason, Hollis and Hank. Ike scored around 10pts in a row against Xavier. He was a one man show for about 5mins. Maybe I'm just caught in the moment but what I remember from that season was Hollis' shot at Bama and Otto's miss against NCST. Sounds like you don't remember those games. Not sure why I should give any credence to your description of Otto's performances when you yourself state that you don't remember the games. In fact, you were already wrong about whether Otto scored 20 points in a game. My stats (which, are, of course, a record of what actually happened, rather than a conjecture based on a human being's faulty memory) show that he scored 20 points against Pitt in the BET and 19 at Marquette. Isaac, with all his potential, only scored that many points in one game, while Otto did it twice, without a three point shot. If anything, Otto's potential should have been more obvious to you, since all he had to do to become great was extend his jumper from mid-range to the 3 point line. Everything else was already there. All that shows is that Otto started playing better towards he end of the season, not necessarily indicative of a whole body of work. Like I said, the difference can be seen in team's game planning for Ike, that never happened for Otto and that's partly why he saw that kind of success in his first year.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on Mar 26, 2015 10:46:07 GMT -5
I don't know why people remember Otto's freshman year as being spectacular, it wasn't. He was our second leading rebounder, but outside of that was pretty average. If we took rebounding out of the equation for both players, Whitt had a much better freshman season than Otto. Also, although Cope looked lost for long stretches throughout the season, he showed much more that Otto and probably outperformed him. If we're talking about the flashes Otto showed during his freshman year then LJ, White, and even Campbell are almost on the same level if they're not there already. Nobody produced like Monroe in his first season, why would that be the standard for someone to make a significant improvement? Just trying to be objective here. Porter average just under ten points a game his freshman season. Copeland just under 7. By the end of his freshman season, Porter was going double figures pretty much every game. Copeland had flashes, but freshman Porter was a lot better. EDIT: As for Whittington (!) being a bigger freshman contributor than Porter, it's not even close. Whittington scored in double figures 3 times all season. Porter? 14. And as you mention, Porter had 2.5x as many rebounds that season. I'm not going to disagree but have a look at their stats adjusted per 40. Otto played a lot more minutes than Isaac.
|
|