LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Feb 8, 2016 10:36:40 GMT -5
I assume you are talking about men's basketball. Anyway, there was a coaching search in 2004 and was more thorough than many of this board understood at the time. Yes, men's basketball. If it was "thorough", who were the other candidates? I'll caveat this by saying I was a student in 2004, so even though I was going to every game I was not at a level where I would know what the administration was doing during the coaching search. However, some of the rumored candidates considered were Duke Assistant Coach Johnny Dawkins, Penn Head Coach Fran Dunphy, Manhattan Head Coach Bobby Gonzalez, Gonzaga Head Coach Mark Few, and Georgetown Assistant Coach Jaren Jackson.
|
|
FrazierFanatic
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,573
Member is Online
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Feb 8, 2016 10:40:17 GMT -5
My biggest concern - only one player, LJ Peak, is a better player today than he was on opening day. One. That is largely on the staff. And yet that's a horrible benchmark. Guys generally make improvements YoY, not inseason. Reggie Cameron is a completely different player than he was a year ago, improved a ton, and yet you're not including him in your set. Bradley Hayes improved a huge amount from his sophomore year to today. The rest of the team is too young or too injured to judge whether they'll improve. I don't agree at all. Granted there will usually be greater improvement between seasons - but coaches work with players on individual drills virtually every practice, to strengthen weaknesses, improve skills, add or improve offensive moves (especially big men), so there should absolutely be individual improvement in-season as well. The fact that we have seen so little this year is discomforting.
|
|
smokeyjack
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,300
|
Post by smokeyjack on Feb 8, 2016 11:00:27 GMT -5
I will ask this again, what is so inherently bad about the Georgetown job that nobody would want to come here? Basically the players have to go to class, that's about it. Seems like otherwise it would be a pretty goos job. Pay is excellent as documented Name brand Excellent school reputation (I guess most here think this is a minus) New practice facility Get to recruit the DMV Get to live in the DMV I'm sure there is more but this is what I cam up with off the top of my head very quickly I like how you shoehorn in "new practice facility" with no irony, given JTIII has had no chance to benefit from it. Not a major conference Televised on a channel no one watches First two major impediments in selling a top recruit Horrible student fan base that thinks a trip to the MCI Center on the metro is too far Questionable decision makers (if they fire JTIII, with the Thompson Center opening) Gigantic political block will shun you (entire Thompson family / major program alumni) But yeah, aside from those things, great job. I'm absolutely certain GU won't fire JT3 for numerous reasons (perhaps the prohibitive buyout being the biggest). And while I personally would like to see some drastic changes in strategy and personnel/recruiting theory (which also aren't likely to happen), I probably wouldn't even advocate firing him after this season. But two things IMO are quite undeniably clear: 1)the trend is not good with GU hoops. We have done less with more in postseason than any other name program in the country during JT3's tenure and now it seems like that underachievement is leaking into regular season. 2)Some on this board seem to think the Thompson name means more than it does outside a very small circle of folks. The NBA isn't crawling with GU alums as it once was. Most kids today (and I work with inner city middle school kids every day) have no idea who JTJr is or what he did for race equity in sports because his primary impact took place more than 30 years ago. We're a decade away from parents of recruits not having any real concrete connection to JTJr. So for anyone to suggest that moving away from the Thompson tree for coaches would cost the university political chits or support is almost insanity IMO. In fact, I think JT3's perception and the perception of his teams' style of play (incorrect as it might sometimes be) is hurting us among the core recruits that are the lifeblood of any program. GU still has a solid bball brand, but it's no longer driven by the program's connection to the Thompsons, IMO largely because JT3 doesn't have a personality remotely as galvanizing or powerful as his father's. In short, we better not be selling the Thompsons anymore, because kids aren't buying. I'm not saying we should limb their association or that they don't add some level of cache. But with or without a Thompson at the helm, GU has plenty to sell to remain competitive in one of the best bball markets in the US. Name me a single Big East program that has an easier sell? If you take into account historical success, facilities, campus, location, academics and resident recruiting base, Villanova is the only team in the same sentence. Don't make putting an NCAA tournament staple on the floor at GU out to be a taller task than it is. Throw in a $2+ M salary, and I think there would be literally dozens of qualified applicants ready to accept the challenge.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,328
|
Post by tashoya on Feb 8, 2016 11:53:12 GMT -5
I like how you shoehorn in "new practice facility" with no irony, given JTIII has had no chance to benefit from it. Not a major conference Televised on a channel no one watches First two major impediments in selling a top recruit Horrible student fan base that thinks a trip to the MCI Center on the metro is too far Questionable decision makers (if they fire JTIII, with the Thompson Center opening) Gigantic political block will shun you (entire Thompson family / major program alumni) But yeah, aside from those things, great job. I'm absolutely certain GU won't fire JT3 for numerous reasons (perhaps the prohibitive buyout being the biggest). And while I personally would like to see some drastic changes in strategy and personnel/recruiting theory (which also aren't likely to happen), I probably wouldn't even advocate firing him after this season. But two things IMO are quite undeniably clear: 1)the trend is not good with GU hoops. We have done less with more in postseason than any other name program in the country during JT3's tenure and now it seems like that underachievement is leaking into regular season. 2)Some on this board seem to think the Thompson name means more than it does outside a very small circle of folks. The NBA isn't crawling with GU alums as it once was. Most kids today (and I work with inner city middle school kids every day) have no idea who JTJr is or what he did for race equity in sports because his primary impact took place more than 30 years ago. We're a decade away from parents of recruits not having any real concrete connection to JTJr. So for anyone to suggest that moving away from the Thompson tree for coaches would cost the university political chits or support is almost insanity IMO. In fact, I think JT3's perception and the perception of his teams' style of play (incorrect as it might sometimes be) is hurting us among the core recruits that are the lifeblood of any program. GU still has a solid bball brand, but it's no longer driven by the program's connection to the Thompsons, IMO largely because JT3 doesn't have a personality remotely as galvanizing or powerful as his father's. In short, we better not be selling the Thompsons anymore, because kids aren't buying. I'm not saying we should limb their association or that they don't add some level of cache. But with or without a Thompson at the helm, GU has plenty to sell to remain competitive in one of the best bball markets in the US. Name me a single Big East program that has an easier sell? If you take into account historical success, facilities, campus, location, academics and resident recruiting base, Villanova is the only team in the same sentence. Don't make putting an NCAA tournament staple on the floor at GU out to be a taller task than it is. Throw in a $2+ M salary, and I think there would be literally dozens of qualified applicants ready to accept the challenge. No unproven coach is going to be offered $2 million anywhere. JT3 was making less than $400k when he started as the HC of the Hoyas. Which 2 dozen proven coaches do you think would jump at the job for $400k?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 8, 2016 13:04:19 GMT -5
Right. He's on the weak side so its his man who is in help position and has to choose to fully commit to help on the drive. No, the near side guard would be the one who has to decide whether to sink down into the lane and help on a driving LJ Peak or stay with the shooter in the corner, which I'm saying should be DSR but typically isn't. As Hayes continues to roll to the basket after setting the high pick on LJ's man, then the weak side defender would sink to try and take away the post rolling to the basket leaving DSR open for the opposite side baseline drift and kick out pass for a corner 3. That's how we have ran it a majority of the time. To put it simply I think LJ and DSR should always be on the same side of the floor when running the high pick and roll with Hayes to space the floor even more giving Peak room to attack. On a rare occasion they are on the same side but for the most part they are not. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the mechanics of this one. If DSR is on the same side as LJ, his defender should naturally be closer to DSR since he will still be a strong side defender. As such, he's not already sunk into the lane in a true helping role and can't really provide help on the folks executing the PNR. There may be good reasons to put DSR there (including preventing someone from over-helping or even doubling), but we'll have to disagree on how the typical defense would play it there.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Feb 8, 2016 13:04:36 GMT -5
I like how you shoehorn in "new practice facility" with no irony, given JTIII has had no chance to benefit from it. Not a major conference Televised on a channel no one watches First two major impediments in selling a top recruit Horrible student fan base that thinks a trip to the MCI Center on the metro is too far Questionable decision makers (if they fire JTIII, with the Thompson Center opening) Gigantic political block will shun you (entire Thompson family / major program alumni) But yeah, aside from those things, great job. I'm absolutely certain GU won't fire JT3 for numerous reasons (perhaps the prohibitive buyout being the biggest). And while I personally would like to see some drastic changes in strategy and personnel/recruiting theory (which also aren't likely to happen), I probably wouldn't even advocate firing him after this season. But two things IMO are quite undeniably clear: 1)the trend is not good with GU hoops. We have done less with more in postseason than any other name program in the country during JT3's tenure and now it seems like that underachievement is leaking into regular season. 2)Some on this board seem to think the Thompson name means more than it does outside a very small circle of folks. The NBA isn't crawling with GU alums as it once was. Most kids today (and I work with inner city middle school kids every day) have no idea who JTJr is or what he did for race equity in sports because his primary impact took place more than 30 years ago. We're a decade away from parents of recruits not having any real concrete connection to JTJr. So for anyone to suggest that moving away from the Thompson tree for coaches would cost the university political chits or support is almost insanity IMO. In fact, I think JT3's perception and the perception of his teams' style of play (incorrect as it might sometimes be) is hurting us among the core recruits that are the lifeblood of any program. GU still has a solid bball brand, but it's no longer driven by the program's connection to the Thompsons, IMO largely because JT3 doesn't have a personality remotely as galvanizing or powerful as his father's. In short, we better not be selling the Thompsons anymore, because kids aren't buying. I'm not saying we should limb their association or that they don't add some level of cache. But with or without a Thompson at the helm, GU has plenty to sell to remain competitive in one of the best bball markets in the US. Name me a single Big East program that has an easier sell? If you take into account historical success, facilities, campus, location, academics and resident recruiting base, Villanova is the only team in the same sentence. Don't make putting an NCAA tournament staple on the floor at GU out to be a taller task than it is. Throw in a $2+ M salary, and I think there would be literally dozens of qualified applicants ready to accept the challenge. But they buy Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, Iverson etc, etc. Even Hibbert and Monroe. So you get rid of the Thompsons and you lose that NBA alumni base too. I mean get rid of the son of the coach who made Ewing/Mutombo/Mourning/Jackson/Wingate, etc. doesn't seem like a smart move. Get rid of the coach who has Ewing's son on staff and Mourning's son on his team. You lose all that and you lose guys like Green, Hibbert, Ewing, Sims, Hollis etc, etc coming back during the summer to work with the current players on their game as well. That's alot to lose IMO.
|
|
lucky
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 575
|
Post by lucky on Feb 8, 2016 13:07:43 GMT -5
I'm absolutely certain GU won't fire JT3 for numerous reasons (perhaps the prohibitive buyout being the biggest). And while I personally would like to see some drastic changes in strategy and personnel/recruiting theory (which also aren't likely to happen), I probably wouldn't even advocate firing him after this season. But two things IMO are quite undeniably clear: 1)the trend is not good with GU hoops. We have done less with more in postseason than any other name program in the country during JT3's tenure and now it seems like that underachievement is leaking into regular season. 2)Some on this board seem to think the Thompson name means more than it does outside a very small circle of folks. The NBA isn't crawling with GU alums as it once was. Most kids today (and I work with inner city middle school kids every day) have no idea who JTJr is or what he did for race equity in sports because his primary impact took place more than 30 years ago. We're a decade away from parents of recruits not having any real concrete connection to JTJr. So for anyone to suggest that moving away from the Thompson tree for coaches would cost the university political chits or support is almost insanity IMO. In fact, I think JT3's perception and the perception of his teams' style of play (incorrect as it might sometimes be) is hurting us among the core recruits that are the lifeblood of any program. GU still has a solid bball brand, but it's no longer driven by the program's connection to the Thompsons, IMO largely because JT3 doesn't have a personality remotely as galvanizing or powerful as his father's. In short, we better not be selling the Thompsons anymore, because kids aren't buying. I'm not saying we should limb their association or that they don't add some level of cache. But with or without a Thompson at the helm, GU has plenty to sell to remain competitive in one of the best bball markets in the US. Name me a single Big East program that has an easier sell? If you take into account historical success, facilities, campus, location, academics and resident recruiting base, Villanova is the only team in the same sentence. Don't make putting an NCAA tournament staple on the floor at GU out to be a taller task than it is. Throw in a $2+ M salary, and I think there would be literally dozens of qualified applicants ready to accept the challenge. But they buy Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, Iverson etc, etc. Even Hibbert and Monroe. So you get rid of the Thompsons and you lose that NBA alumni base too. I mean get rid of the son of the coach who made Ewing/Mutombo/Mourning/Jackson/Wingate, etc. doesn't seem like a smart move. Get rid of the coach who has Ewing's son on staff and Mourning's son on his team. You lose all that and you lose guys like Green, Hibbert, Ewing, Sims, Hollis etc, etc coming back during the summer to work with the current players on their game as well. That's alot to lose IMO. That is a lot of supposition. I don't buy the guys abandoning GU because of a coaching change. The commonality they all have is the University.
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Feb 8, 2016 14:04:46 GMT -5
No, the near side guard would be the one who has to decide whether to sink down into the lane and help on a driving LJ Peak or stay with the shooter in the corner, which I'm saying should be DSR but typically isn't. As Hayes continues to roll to the basket after setting the high pick on LJ's man, then the weak side defender would sink to try and take away the post rolling to the basket leaving DSR open for the opposite side baseline drift and kick out pass for a corner 3. That's how we have ran it a majority of the time. To put it simply I think LJ and DSR should always be on the same side of the floor when running the high pick and roll with Hayes to space the floor even more giving Peak room to attack. On a rare occasion they are on the same side but for the most part they are not. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the mechanics of this one. If DSR is on the same side as LJ, his defender should naturally be closer to DSR since he will still be a strong side defender. As such, he's not already sunk into the lane in a true helping role and can't really provide help on the folks executing the PNR. There may be good reasons to put DSR there (including preventing someone from over-helping or even doubling), but we'll have to disagree on how the typical defense would play it there.That's exactly my point. That's why I have been saying they need to play them on the same side of the floor. If LJ's has the ball coming off the pick and DSR is in the strong side corner, DSR's defender will have to choose whether to sink and help on a down hill Peak or stay with a strong perimeter scorer in DSR leading to either a 1 on 1 driving opportunity for LJ on the other teams post with Peak having an angle and head of steam or a wide open 3 in the corner for DSR if his man helps on a driving Peak.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 8, 2016 14:28:59 GMT -5
That is a lot of supposition. I don't buy the guys abandoning GU because of a coaching change. The commonality they all have is the University. This is simply untrue. The one common strain of Georgetown basketball has been John Thompson Jr. and later his son. And even when Esherick took the helm for a few years, there was still strong influence from John Thompson Jr. behind the scenes. Yes, every NBA player listed went to Georgetown, but the other commonality is that ALL of these players played for either John Thompson Jr. or John Thompson III. There is no identity of Georgetown basketball that is not closely tied to these men. If you alienate the Thompson family, you run the risk of alienating the entire alumni base. And while there are vocal opponents of John Thompson III on HoyaTalk, I do think they tend to be a small vocal minority. There are still many people who support the coach and the program. Hell, Esherick was largely supported until the very end, and his team's on court performance was downright embarrassing. We are not even close to that level now. Again, we were a 4 seed last year. For all the talk about "trending" downward, we had a very good team less than a year ago. You don't just willy-nilly fire a coach because of a perceived "trend" without knowing it's a real problem. And, I don't think we are even close to that point. And again, if you're going to take a move that's as risky as finding a new coach, you better have a really good idea who is going to fill that role. And, aside from the pie-in-the-sky people who seem to think a proven coach will take the job (no way), or that Georgetown would throw $2 million+ at another somewhat unproven coach (highly hunlikely), there is essentially no legitimate argument that we are likely to get anybody better. The best we would get is a Wojo up-and-comer type who (a) is unproven and (b) with success, would leave, and then we'd have to start the cycle all over again.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 8, 2016 14:37:11 GMT -5
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the mechanics of this one. If DSR is on the same side as LJ, his defender should naturally be closer to DSR since he will still be a strong side defender. As such, he's not already sunk into the lane in a true helping role and can't really provide help on the folks executing the PNR. There may be good reasons to put DSR there (including preventing someone from over-helping or even doubling), but we'll have to disagree on how the typical defense would play it there.That's exactly my point. That's why I have been saying they need to play them on the same side of the floor. If LJ's has the ball coming off the pick and DSR is in the strong side corner, DSR's defender will have to choose whether to sink and help on a down hill Peak or stay with a strong perimeter scorer in DSR leading to either a 1 on 1 driving opportunity for LJ on the other teams post with Peak having an angle and head of steam or a wide open 3 in the corner for DSR if his man helps on a driving Peak. We need a hoyatalk telestrator. My point is that the help is most likely to come from the weak side rather than the strong side anyway. So DSR's defender (if on the strong side) isn't always forced to make a choice. (Either of our examples requires an LJ with vision to make the pass....)
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 8, 2016 15:11:29 GMT -5
Yes, men's basketball. If it was "thorough", who were the other candidates? I'll caveat this by saying I was a student in 2004, so even though I was going to every game I was not at a level where I would know what the administration was doing during the coaching search. However, some of the rumored candidates considered were Duke Assistant Coach Johnny Dawkins, Penn Head Coach Fran Dunphy, Manhattan Head Coach Bobby Gonzalez, Gonzaga Head Coach Mark Few, and Georgetown Assistant Coach Jaren Jackson. David Leitao was mentioned in at least one article. But: Dawkins: 7 seasons as a coach at Stanford. One NCAA appearance (Sweet 16). They did win the NIT twice, though. Dunphy: Dunphy has a great record at getting to the first round of the NCAA but then losing. He's only made it past the first game in the NCAA tournament twice, and he's never made the Sweet 16. He's also not made the NCAA tournament in 3 years. By HoyaTalk standards, that justifies firing immediately. Gonzalez: He was a huge failure at Seton Hall. He made the NCAA's twice at Manhattan in 7 seasons there, and never made it to the Sweet 16. He was fired for not being a good representative of Seton Hall. Mark Few: He would have been a great choice, obviously. Still, in the period since JT3 has been coaching Georgetown, he's made the Sweet 16 twice, and one Elite 8. Since he's made the NCAA's every year, you could argue his record is better than JT3's but it's close. And, he has always coached in a much easier conference. Jaren Jackson: Totally unproven. So, even back then, the people in line for the job, with the exception of Few, weren't really great choices either. And, with Few, it wasn't obvious at that point he'd keep it up. JT3 is a clearly better choice than Leitao, Dawkins, and Gonzalez, and almost certainly a better choice than Jackson would have been, and maybe Dunphy, too.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,384
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 8, 2016 15:30:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Feb 8, 2016 15:36:21 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 8, 2016 15:48:18 GMT -5
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall the Meyer family cutting ties with Depaul for a while after that. And anyone that thinks the NBA players JT3 coached are going to remain involved in the program if they think JT3 was fired unjustly are kidding themselves.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,384
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 8, 2016 15:51:37 GMT -5
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,339
|
Post by SDHoya on Feb 8, 2016 16:05:01 GMT -5
We were a 4 seed last year, fine. But the year before that we were dreadful and ended the season with a BE tournament loss to DePaul (the NIT doesn't count). This year we are headed towards a similar path.
The final straw in the Esherick era was when he made some comment about how it was unrealistic for Georgetown to expect to be a tournament team year in year out. Unless we are using Esherick's logic, having one decent season (which still did not take us to the NCAA second weekend, nor even the BE tournament final) does not seem to me to be enough to balance out two tournament misses.
For a stretch after III took over, we became used to the idea of being a consistently ranked and tournament caliber team. Maybe we were delusional to believe after 2007 that we were back among the elite. Still, I thought when we fired Esherick, we also exorcised the logic that we were essentially a mid major. Getting less out of more is a trend now. We didn't settle for it in 2004 and we shouldnt settle for it in 2016. Maybe III can update his approach and get us back to being a year in year out competitor. If he can't, he should not be our coach, regardless of his last name.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Feb 8, 2016 16:09:06 GMT -5
We were a 4 seed last year, fine. But the year before that we were dreadful and ended the season with a BE tournament loss to DePaul (the NIT doesn't count). This year we are headed towards a similar path. The final straw in the Esherick era was when he made some comment about how it was unrealistic for Georgetown to expect to be a tournament team year in year out. Unless we are using Esherick's logic, having one decent season (which still did not take us to the NCAA second weekend, nor even the BE tournament final) does not seem to me to be enough to balance out two tournament misses. For a stretch after III took over, we became used to the idea of being a consistently ranked and tournament caliber team. Maybe we were delusional to believe after 2007 that we were back among the elite. Still, I thought when we fired Esherick, we also exorcised the logic that we were essentially a mid major. Getting less out of more is a trend now. We didn't settle for it in 2004 and we shouldnt settle for it in 2016. Maybe III can update his approach and get us back to being a year in year out competitor. If he can't, he should not be our coach, regardless of his last name. Are you sure Esh said that? Sounds like the Joe Lang quote to me...
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 8, 2016 16:17:36 GMT -5
We were a 4 seed last year, fine. But the year before that we were dreadful and ended the season with a BE tournament loss to DePaul (the NIT doesn't count). This year we are headed towards a similar path. The final straw in the Esherick era was when he made some comment about how it was unrealistic for Georgetown to expect to be a tournament team year in year out. Unless we are using Esherick's logic, having one decent season (which still did not take us to the NCAA second weekend, nor even the BE tournament final) does not seem to me to be enough to balance out two tournament misses. For a stretch after III took over, we became used to the idea of being a consistently ranked and tournament caliber team. Maybe we were delusional to believe after 2007 that we were back among the elite. Still, I thought when we fired Esherick, we also exorcised the logic that we were essentially a mid major. Getting less out of more is a trend now. We didn't settle for it in 2004 and we shouldnt settle for it in 2016. Maybe III can update his approach and get us back to being a year in year out competitor. If he can't, he should not be our coach, regardless of his last name. If this season continues along this path, not making the tournament for two out of three years isn't good. I don't know anyone saying it is. The issue is whether that record justifies a change. I'm firmly in the "no" camp on those merits alone. I just don't think three years makes a trend worthy of a change, particularly with a tournament bid and high seed sandwiched in the middle. And that's before you consider that we qualified four straight years before that (and seven of the previous eight). I'm not saying we should settle for making the NCAA's once every three years, but Craig had five full seasons as coach and didn't qualify in four of them. So, there was nothing to even fall back on in terms of more distant success. If we didn't get a bid this year or next year? Well, I think it's then a fair discussion to have.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 8, 2016 16:18:04 GMT -5
We were a 4 seed last year, fine. But the year before that we were dreadful and ended the season with a BE tournament loss to DePaul (the NIT doesn't count). This year we are headed towards a similar path. The final straw in the Esherick era was when he made some comment about how it was unrealistic for Georgetown to expect to be a tournament team year in year out. Unless we are using Esherick's logic, having one decent season (which still did not take us to the NCAA second weekend, nor even the BE tournament final) does not seem to me to be enough to balance out two tournament misses. For a stretch after III took over, we became used to the idea of being a consistently ranked and tournament caliber team. Maybe we were delusional to believe after 2007 that we were back among the elite. Still, I thought when we fired Esherick, we also exorcised the logic that we were essentially a mid major. Getting less out of more is a trend now. We didn't settle for it in 2004 and we shouldnt settle for it in 2016. Maybe III can update his approach and get us back to being a year in year out competitor. If he can't, he should not be our coach, regardless of his last name. In the last four years we've gotten a #2 seed and a #4 seed. We also turned over the assistant coaches in 2013 after we had recruiting problems with DSR's class and Reggie Cameron's class. The trend line isn't great, but (1) the season isn't over yet and (2) the talent we all saw on display last year is still on the team--it could be that next year we return to being a top 5 seed if the sophomore class steps up and Derrickson/Govan/Kaleb improve.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,384
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 8, 2016 16:18:07 GMT -5
We were a 4 seed last year, fine. But the year before that we were dreadful and ended the season with a BE tournament loss to DePaul (the NIT doesn't count). This year we are headed towards a similar path. The final straw in the Esherick era was when he made some comment about how it was unrealistic for Georgetown to expect to be a tournament team year in year out. Unless we are using Esherick's logic, having one decent season (which still did not take us to the NCAA second weekend, nor even the BE tournament final) does not seem to me to be enough to balance out two tournament misses. For a stretch after III took over, we became used to the idea of being a consistently ranked and tournament caliber team. Maybe we were delusional to believe after 2007 that we were back among the elite. Still, I thought when we fired Esherick, we also exorcised the logic that we were essentially a mid major. Getting less out of more is a trend now. We didn't settle for it in 2004 and we shouldnt settle for it in 2016. Maybe III can update his approach and get us back to being a year in year out competitor. If he can't, he should not be our coach, regardless of his last name. Are you sure Esh said that? Sounds like the Joe Lang quote to me... It was Lang: Lang used the interview to clear up contextual issues from his comments in a recent article (“Just Like the Hoyas, Esherick’s Evolving; Young Team, Coach Still Have Ups and Downs,” The Washington Post, Jan. 20) that have sparked controversy on campus. Many students have taken particular offense to statements attributed to Lang, who said that making the NCAA Tournament every year for Georgetown’s men’s basketball team is ”’an unreasonable’ expectation.” Lang said that he was quoted accurately in the article, but said that he “chooses his words very carefully” and noted the difference between “expectation” and “goal.” georgetownvoice.com/2003/02/06/joe-lang-speaks-out/
|
|