TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 16, 2016 22:25:53 GMT -5
Not unless your point was "good players, exclusive of what position they play, are valuable" My point is that Creighton won 4 games last year. A good point guard like Watson can make everyone better, make an offense hum ( I believe Creighton was last in pants scored last year), and turn a program around. Yes good players are valuable but unless their name is Patrick Ewing no one is more valuable than a point guard - and our lack of a legitimate one is what is killing us this year. Would you rather have Otto Porter or Mo Watson?
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,377
|
Post by drquigley on Feb 17, 2016 9:44:32 GMT -5
My point is that Creighton won 4 games last year. A good point guard like Watson can make everyone better, make an offense hum ( I believe Creighton was last in pants scored last year), and turn a program around. Yes good players are valuable but unless their name is Patrick Ewing no one is more valuable than a point guard - and our lack of a legitimate one is what is killing us this year. Would you rather have Otto Porter or Mo Watson? On this team? Mo Watson. Move DSR to shooting guard and he would light things up as would LJ and Ike. Have you seen Watson? Man, I'd trade two Ottos for Watson right now.
|
|
lda05816
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 606
|
Post by lda05816 on Feb 17, 2016 13:03:12 GMT -5
Would you rather have Otto Porter or Mo Watson? On this team? Mo Watson. Move DSR to shooting guard and he would light things up as would LJ and Ike. Have you seen Watson? Man, I'd trade two Ottos for Watson right now. 2 First team All-Americans for Mo Watson? I would love to have Mo Watson on this team and I think he's a very good player but Otto would improve this team a heck of a lot more than Watson. As for guard play in general, they run the show in today's college basketball. Look at what Kemba and Shabazz did in the tourny. The game itself is getting "smaller" as teams try to emulate the Warriors. I'm really excited to see what this team looks like down the stretch without Hayes. It forces Mourning and Derrickson to get some minutes at the 5 and the offense will be much more fluid imo. How many big guys in this league can those 2 not defend due to size or bulk?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 17, 2016 13:07:04 GMT -5
If we had Otto Porter at PF and SF, no one would ever score on us.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,377
|
Post by drquigley on Feb 17, 2016 17:59:14 GMT -5
Loved Otto and am sure he would make us better. But THIS TEAM desperately needs a pg. The wheels are coming off and we need lug nuts not a new engine.
|
|
lda05816
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 606
|
Post by lda05816 on Feb 17, 2016 23:53:14 GMT -5
Loved Otto and am sure he would make us better. But THIS TEAM desperately needs a pg. The wheels are coming off and we need lug nuts not a new engine. This team needs more playmakers, not specifically a pg imo. The 07 team did not have a "true pg" but it had a plethora of good passers. If you watch the offense in 07, the ball moved constantly. This year it sticks and the offense gets stale. A guy like Paul White would have been a great "stirrer of the drink" for this team imo.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Feb 19, 2016 10:45:38 GMT -5
Suggest you check out the Tre Campbell thread. Lots of discussion on pg position in general and Tre's suitability for it. Yes, he's suitable for point guard play, but he needs to test his heart now. He has to attack. He should know he's quick enough to get past his defenders. He's needs to me to coach him in the off season.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Feb 19, 2016 10:51:20 GMT -5
Suggest you check out the Tre Campbell thread. Lots of discussion on pg position in general and Tre's suitability for it. I think you touched on it with your original post. I'm not sure we need a true point (would be nice though) but we do need to have point skills. It doesn't have to be all one guy with them but, like you mentioned, it's a big reason we're missing PW so badly. If Tre had added more to his game over the summer (and hadn't been injured), I think we could have gotten by a bit better without Paul. But we don't have other guys with PG skills for the most part. Who's the good/great passer? Who gets in the lane and dishes well? Who takes his guy off of the dribble? We've seen some decent passing from Bradley and Reggie but it's been far from consistent. LJ has stepped up in his driving game and his dishing as well and that's hugely helpful. Tre? He's young still but what PG skills does he have? He's good at pushing the tempo but what else so far? If we don't have a true PG, we need other guys on the floor that have the skills a point would have. One great passer. One guy that can get into the lane consistently. One guy that can blanket the opposing point. Doesn't have to be one guy but we badly need all of those things. We're improving a bit but not to the point where on any given day you can expect a great passing game by Reggie or a great driving game by LJ. It leads to a lot of inconsistency and "what if's" when you see Paul on the bench cheering his tail off. Yes, we need TWO true point guards. This creates havoc for our opponents having two floor generals on the court at the same time in some instances. The Hoyas had a true point guard in some time now. We had players with high iq's that could've played the point but played different positions. Did you know that Jabril was a true point guard. Whenever he was on the ball he made good decisions most of the times. Being a point guard, simply means, yes, it's all on you, but of course it's a team game. The point guard is the extension of the coach on the court! If DSR consistently pounded the paint and just totally concentrated on getting his teammates involved and making them better would be greatly appreciated, but it's almost too late now! Put LJ on the ball!
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Feb 19, 2016 10:54:14 GMT -5
Not unless your point was "good players, exclusive of what position they play, are valuable" My point is that Creighton won 4 games last year. A good point guard like Watson can make everyone better, make an offense hum ( I believe Creighton was last in pants scored last year), and turn a program around. Yes good players are valuable but unless their name is Patrick Ewing no one is more valuable than a point guard - and our lack of a legitimate one is what is killing us this year. This has hurt us since JT3's arrival especially after 2007. Point guard play was MIA. No disrespect to Wallace, Starks, & Wright. Clark ran the point pretty darn good because he was a slasher and he was mentally and physically tough although he weighed hardly nothing lol. Sir Jason!
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Feb 19, 2016 10:59:17 GMT -5
Teams are taught to cut the head of the snake off early in games because they know the point guard is the playmaker that makes the team go. The point guard controls the tempo of the game. The point guard makes his teammates better. The point guard manages the clock, fouls/other team fouls and crucial decision making. The point guard's job announcement is very lengthy!
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Feb 19, 2016 10:59:56 GMT -5
I guess you could say I'm an expert on the Hoyas! lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 12:13:55 GMT -5
I think you touched on it with your original post. I'm not sure we need a true point (would be nice though) but we do need to have point skills. It doesn't have to be all one guy with them but, like you mentioned, it's a big reason we're missing PW so badly. If Tre had added more to his game over the summer (and hadn't been injured), I think we could have gotten by a bit better without Paul. But we don't have other guys with PG skills for the most part. Who's the good/great passer? Who gets in the lane and dishes well? Who takes his guy off of the dribble? We've seen some decent passing from Bradley and Reggie but it's been far from consistent. LJ has stepped up in his driving game and his dishing as well and that's hugely helpful. Tre? He's young still but what PG skills does he have? He's good at pushing the tempo but what else so far? If we don't have a true PG, we need other guys on the floor that have the skills a point would have. One great passer. One guy that can get into the lane consistently. One guy that can blanket the opposing point. Doesn't have to be one guy but we badly need all of those things. We're improving a bit but not to the point where on any given day you can expect a great passing game by Reggie or a great driving game by LJ. It leads to a lot of inconsistency and "what if's" when you see Paul on the bench cheering his tail off. Yes, we need TWO true point guards. This creates havoc for our opponents having two floor generals on the court at the same time in some instances. The Hoyas had a true point guard in some time now. We had players with high iq's that could've played the point but played different positions. Did you know that Jabril was a true point guard. Whenever he was on the ball he made good decisions most of the times. Being a point guard, simply means, yes, it's all on you, but of course it's a team game. The point guard is the extension of the coach on the court! If DSR consistently pounded the paint and just totally concentrated on getting his teammates involved and making them better would be greatly appreciated, but it's almost too late now! Put LJ on the ball! you are absolutely correct. We need several guards to provide depth. As I posted before, look at Villanova. Their bigs are OK, but they have 4 really, really good guards (Hart, Brunson, Booth and Archidiacano) and we have one (and he is a senior). The game has changed. We can even extrapolate this to the NBA. The Golden State guards are not too shabby.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Feb 19, 2016 12:21:34 GMT -5
Yes, we need TWO true point guards. This creates havoc for our opponents having two floor generals on the court at the same time in some instances. The Hoyas had a true point guard in some time now. We had players with high iq's that could've played the point but played different positions. Did you know that Jabril was a true point guard. Whenever he was on the ball he made good decisions most of the times. Being a point guard, simply means, yes, it's all on you, but of course it's a team game. The point guard is the extension of the coach on the court! If DSR consistently pounded the paint and just totally concentrated on getting his teammates involved and making them better would be greatly appreciated, but it's almost too late now! Put LJ on the ball! you are absolutely correct. We need several guards to provide depth. As I posted before, look at Villanova. Their bigs are OK, but they have 4 really, really good guards (Hart, Brunson, Booth and Archidiacano) and we have one (and he is a senior). The game has changed. We can even extrapolate this to the NBA. The Golden State guards are not too shabby. right, you're not going anywhere with poor guard play. We need guards/attack guards decision makers
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 19, 2016 14:39:04 GMT -5
Having a good point guard is absolutely vital in two areas: (1) facing a strong pressure defense that requires a slick-handling guard; and (2) if you're playing a type of offensive system that requires a guard to monopolize time on the ball, either to score or get the ball to the right folks (think Duke's system last year). Somewhat surprisingly to me, we haven't seen a lot of (1) this year. And, for better or worse, we don't play the type of offense that is (2).
Otherwise, I think most of what people are calling for is someone that can break down their defender whenever they want to, penetrate into the lane, and either draw a foul, score, or pass to someone who can score. Right? When the shot clock is down, instead of a 25-foot step-back from DSR, you'd like to see Creighton's Watson in Georgetown colors driving the lane and dishing for a flush. Needless to say, DSR, Tre, Kaleb, and all of our 3s, 4s and 5s are not that guy. Right now, Marcus couldn't drive past a stationary Cadillac for a bucket. LJ can almost always get by his man, and he's an increasing load to stop at the rim, but he's not adept at the quick dish for an easy bucket. At least not yet. That's a big problem in today's game. We need more guys that can do that.
At the margins, it's easier for that guy to be a PG because otherwise, if it were a bigger player that had that skill-set, a defending team could probably stop him with a smaller, quicker player, assuming the bigger player weren't a good shooter or post player. And a shorter player (a guard) is going to be quicker in absolute terms than would a 2, 3, or 4. There's value in all that. But I still think it's at the margins. Otherwise, and particularly in our system, it can be literally anyone on the court. If Isaac were quicker and stronger with the ball and a good passer, it could be him. For that matter, if DSR were quicker, it could certainly be him (of course, if he were quicker, he'd probably be a first team all-american and we wouldn't be having this discussion).
My point is that what we need, more than anything, is strong quickness, handle, vision, and finishing ability as compared to the opponent playing that person's position. A 2 that is better at those things than the guys he faces. Or a 3. Or even a 4. Really, it need not be a PG, at least not in our system. Honestly, I don't really understand the argument against that. Where Seton Hall killed us is that for large points of the game, every single one of their players was better at that skill set than the guy facing him on the Hoyas.
As for a PG being the "team leader" or the "vocal leader," there's simply no truth to that in my experience. Most often, the best player, regardless of position, serves that role, though not always. The PG needs to call out the play, and get folks to the right spot to run it, but goodness, that's not rocket science. And in our system, the PG doesn't have his hands on the ball anymore than any other player does, once that first pass is made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 15:34:35 GMT -5
I have to respectfully disagree with you. We have a large number of highly recruited basketball players at the forward and also Govan at the center position. We have recruited poorly at the guard position and this continues. As I posted above, look at the teams who do well this year. It's not only Villanova, look at Providence. Chris Dunn is a phenomenal guard and they have other good guards. Creghton should have beaten us twice. In most of our losses, it was the opposition's guards, that caused most of the problems. As I posted above we have exactly one good guard (possibly another one in LJ Peak, although he is not a natural guard). We start 4 highly recruited players with the exception of Tre Campbell. So why do we lose to a team such as Radford and others with notoriously inferior quality??? If get your argument correctly, we lose because the opposition has a better skill set. Why do you say that the players on the other side have a better skill set?? I don't think that is true. Jerry
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 19, 2016 16:11:58 GMT -5
I have to respectfully disagree with you. We have a large number of highly recruited basketball players at the forward and also Govan at the center position. We have recruited poorly at the guard position and this continues. As I posted above, look at the teams who do well this year. It's not only Villanova, look at Providence. Chris Dunn is a phenomenal guard and they have other good guards. Creghton should have beaten us twice. In most of our losses, it was the opposition's guards, that caused most of the problems. As I posted above we have exactly one good guard (possibly another one in LJ Peak, although he is not a natural guard). We start 4 highly recruited players with the exception of Tre Campbell. So why do we lose to a team such as Radford and others with notoriously inferior quality??? If get your argument correctly, we lose because the opposition has a better skill set. Why do you say that the players on the other side have a better skill set?? I don't think that is true. Jerry I would need to go game by game, which I'm not going to do, but I think opposing team's fours and threes have outplayed our fours and threes in the vast majority of our losses. In how many losses did Ike outplay his opposing number? Or Marcus/Reggie? There have been plenty of games when the opposing five has outplayed ours in losses (a few examples where that isn't true like last game). It's hard to know how to classify the Tre/DSR/LJ triumvirate in terms of position, but I think in our losses their opposing number has often outplayed them too. Still, there are times that hasn't been true with DSR and times it hasn't been true with LJ (particularly recently). Indeed, it may be the case (again, I'm not certain of this) that if you tried to subjectively assign a simple "won the matchup" or "lost the matchup" to the five spots on the floor in each loss, you may find that our guards "won" their matchups in a losing effort more frequently than did our frontcourt players, even accounting for the fact that Campbell presumably has lost his matchup in every one of our defeats. That may not be true, but if it isn't, I do bet it's at least awfully close. Obviously, when you lose, your players tend to lose their matchups! So I know I'm not being overly insightful. But I think a lot of it -- particularly in the front court -- is because the opposition's guys were quicker. We'd be better with a very quick PG with good passing, IQ, handle, finishing, etc.; I don't want want to undersell the point. Who wouldn't be? But I actually don't think it's been this team's biggest issue. And I still think that we just need increased quickness -- somewhere, everywhere -- to get better. I don't disagree that we've been abused by very quick guards. But I think we reasonably assumed that we would win a bunch of the other matchups on the floor and win that way. And we haven't. We can get better, in my view, by getting better in any of those areas.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Feb 21, 2016 9:44:41 GMT -5
Not unless your point was "good players, exclusive of what position they play, are valuable" My point is that Creighton won 4 games last year. A good point guard like Watson can make everyone better, make an offense hum ( I believe Creighton was last in pants scored last year), and turn a program around. Yes good players are valuable but unless their name is Patrick Ewing no one is more valuable than a point guard - and our lack of a legitimate one is what is killing us this year. If I could shake your hand I would haha! Right on point!
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Feb 21, 2016 9:46:48 GMT -5
Having a good point guard is absolutely vital in two areas: (1) facing a strong pressure defense that requires a slick-handling guard; and (2) if you're playing a type of offensive system that requires a guard to monopolize time on the ball, either to score or get the ball to the right folks (think Duke's system last year). Somewhat surprisingly to me, we haven't seen a lot of (1) this year. And, for better or worse, we don't play the type of offense that is (2). Otherwise, I think most of what people are calling for is someone that can break down their defender whenever they want to, penetrate into the lane, and either draw a foul, score, or pass to someone who can score. Right? When the shot clock is down, instead of a 25-foot step-back from DSR, you'd like to see Creighton's Watson in Georgetown colors driving the lane and dishing for a flush. Needless to say, DSR, Tre, Kaleb, and all of our 3s, 4s and 5s are not that guy. Right now, Marcus couldn't drive past a stationary Cadillac for a bucket. LJ can almost always get by his man, and he's an increasing load to stop at the rim, but he's not adept at the quick dish for an easy bucket. At least not yet. That's a big problem in today's game. We need more guys that can do that. At the margins, it's easier for that guy to be a PG because otherwise, if it were a bigger player that had that skill-set, a defending team could probably stop him with a smaller, quicker player, assuming the bigger player weren't a good shooter or post player. And a shorter player (a guard) is going to be quicker in absolute terms than would a 2, 3, or 4. There's value in all that. But I still think it's at the margins. Otherwise, and particularly in our system, it can be literally anyone on the court. If Isaac were quicker and stronger with the ball and a good passer, it could be him. For that matter, if DSR were quicker, it could certainly be him (of course, if he were quicker, he'd probably be a first team all-american and we wouldn't be having this discussion). My point is that what we need, more than anything, is strong quickness, handle, vision, and finishing ability as compared to the opponent playing that person's position. A 2 that is better at those things than the guys he faces. Or a 3. Or even a 4. Really, it need not be a PG, at least not in our system. Honestly, I don't really understand the argument against that. Where Seton Hall killed us is that for large points of the game, every single one of their players was better at that skill set than the guy facing him on the Hoyas. As for a PG being the "team leader" or the "vocal leader," there's simply no truth to that in my experience. Most often, the best player, regardless of position, serves that role, though not always. The PG needs to call out the play, and get folks to the right spot to run it, but goodness, that's not rocket science. And in our system, the PG doesn't have his hands on the ball anymore than any other player does, once that first pass is made. At the end of the day you need true point guards to run the show for your team and yes in the Gtown offense..It's basketball!
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Feb 21, 2016 9:48:16 GMT -5
Loved Otto and am sure he would make us better. But THIS TEAM desperately needs a pg. The wheels are coming off and we need lug nuts not a new engine. This team needs more playmakers, not specifically a pg imo. The 07 team did not have a "true pg" but it had a plethora of good passers. If you watch the offense in 07, the ball moved constantly. This year it sticks and the offense gets stale. A guy like Paul White would have been a great "stirrer of the drink" for this team imo. You must've been reading my mind!
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Feb 21, 2016 9:48:40 GMT -5
This team needs more playmakers, not specifically a pg imo. The 07 team did not have a "true pg" but it had a plethora of good passers. If you watch the offense in 07, the ball moved constantly. This year it sticks and the offense gets stale. A guy like Paul White would have been a great "stirrer of the drink" for this team imo. You must've been reading my mind! But everytime needs a true pg or two!
|
|