eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Mar 20, 2016 21:24:38 GMT -5
The points on DSR were interesting from that board. You didn't hear that before did you? I love how on this board your crazy for pointing something like that out but it's what independent observers can clearly see.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 21, 2016 13:26:55 GMT -5
Good thread, MCI.
When I went to the Providence game at Providence this year, I spent a decent time talking about the team with fellow Hoya fans, and I solidified my feelings on the team and my best guess as to why this team wasn't better. I'm not certain -- I think this team is a conundrum to a certain extent, but I've got some thoughts I'm going to put down here.
Notes and Assumptions 1. There's never just one cause of an issue. It's never that simple. I'm going to focus on several things that I think just compounded on top of each other. 2. There's always many ways to get better, and sometimes that can be improving on a strength rather than addressing a weakness. In other words, even if I don't list something as an issue, that doesn't mean that improving it wouldn't have made the team better. Running and pressing may help -- I'm not saying it won't -- but I think we have deeper issues than that. 3. I'm not going to try to address items outside of this season. We can argue all day over the tournament losses versus the regular season success of the past, but I think we can all agree that this season was a special level of suck. 4. I'm not going to assess blame. Most of these things are a collective effort and trying to tease out where most of the blame lies is a fool's errand with the info we fans have.
What I Don't Think It Is - Talent or Fit of Talent
If we were talking about making a run for a National Title, the concerns about talent and having all the pieces is 100% right. Trying to fit DSR as a creator, the lack of development of Tre Campbell and the last two years of individually flawed centers would have kept us, regardless of anything else, from being a Top 5 team. There's no doubt of that in my mind. And there's no doubt having an elite PG (or center, or anyone) would have completely transformed the team. No one's wrong when they call for that.
But this team has enough to talent to make the tournament with a decent seed. It should have. It's not lacking in overall talent, and while the fit is also questionable, that's not entirely on the talent -- this talent could have worked together better.
Problem #1 - Zero High Energy Guys
I'm not going to call out the team for lack of effort. It's a tough thing to evaluate and it immediately goes to character when I think often it's not as conscious as people would like it to be.
But here's the thing -- those high effort guys -- that's a skill. And easily identifiable. And we had Trawick, Hopkins, Bowen last year ... and this year we had Kaleb and maybe Mourning a little bit. But no one else. It's not a shock those guys were all plus defenders, and it's not a shock we had no real plus defenders on the squad or that we got killed on the boards or to 50/50 balls.
This team simply did not put in the high level of effort for enough minutes of the game. The constant need to fuel comebacks show that. We need a better mix of on court intensity, and while Jagan seems like he brings that, and Kaleb can play more, I'm concerned this isn't going to change much next year unless someone steps it up here. And it's not normal for someone to step it up.
Problem #2 - Our Fundamentals Suck
I can't remember if it was the Providence game or the game right after, but I was watching the replay, and something about LJ Peak struck me. LJ played very well, for the most part, during Big East play, so I bring this up as something more indicative of the team than him in particular. But in this game, there was a stretch where he received a pass at the top of the three point arc four times in a row, wide open ... and not once was he in a position to catch and do anything with the ball. He'd be sideways to the basket, casually and lazily waiting for the ball. In the time it took him to orient, the defender recovered.
Any offense predicated on moving the ball needs quick decision making and players ready to exploit the reacting defense. I don't think we were ready very often. One reason is the above -- we never we ready for the ball. Add in that on defense we don't seem to know how to move our feet and give ground -- which is how you have to play D these days -- and our basic footwork and positioning is a real problem. Defenders don't move right -- and they don't know where to be to help out other defenders.
This normally isn't an issue with JTIII's teams. But the defense has been an issue for a couple of years and the offense was a real problem this year. I'm not going to guess at why -- it could be anything. Even focus on the court -- as in, the players know what to do and can do it ... they just aren't focused on being in the right spot, positioned in the right way, at the right time.
But our offense is built not to need a great one on one creator, but it needs two things to be true: a team that plays well together and trusts the offense and the fundamentals to execute. We definitely lacked the latter.
Can a summer change this? I dunno. We showed some spurts. But if it is focus, I question that as a learned skill.
Problem #3 - We don't trust each other or the offense/defense schemes
How many open backdoor passes did we fail to make a game? I'd say about 3-4/game? How much did people stop cutting because of that? Who knows? The offense ran well when we were active and moved, and stagnated when the ball did. On defense, no matter how well we played at times, there were still 5 or so times a game it was apparent that someone completely lost their man or position.
I saw this improve as the season went on. Even though they didn't get the results, on offense, at least, it seemed like they were eventually trying to make the right pass -- and they didn't give up on it the first time it didn't work. But you can only have an effective offense a couple of ways in basketball -- either have superior talent, or play well as a team. When compared to Kentucky or UNC, we're never going to have the former. So we better have the latter.
That's all I got.
I don't know if this gets better next year. We aren't increasing our net talent, but we get the sophomores and freshman another year of playing together, which can improve #2 and #3. We add Jagan Moseley, which could improve #1. One player likely isn't enough on #1, so we're left hoping for individual improvement and team play on the court. We have talent, so it could work out. But the overall lack of improvement on skillsets and especially the teamwork aspect has me scratching my head.
It really could get better. But it should have already gotten better. It leaves me wondering if this team's bball IQ is low, or if the staff or players are checked out. And it leaves us relying on individual improvement, which I'm skeptical of truly making this a good team all on its own.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 21, 2016 13:37:52 GMT -5
#1 can also hopefully be improved by adding a JuCo (Mulamore) or graduate point guard. Replacing DSR and some of Tre's minutes with a new point guard and some more minutes for Kaleb could help us take a step forward there.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 21, 2016 15:08:51 GMT -5
Good thread, MCI. When I went to the Providence game at Providence this year, I spent a decent time talking about the team with fellow Hoya fans, and I solidified my feelings on the team and my best guess as to why this team wasn't better. I'm not certain -- I think this team is a conundrum to a certain extent, but I've got some thoughts I'm going to put down here. Notes and Assumptions1. There's never just one cause of an issue. It's never that simple. I'm going to focus on several things that I think just compounded on top of each other. 2. There's always many ways to get better, and sometimes that can be improving on a strength rather than addressing a weakness. In other words, even if I don't list something as an issue, that doesn't mean that improving it wouldn't have made the team better. Running and pressing may help -- I'm not saying it won't -- but I think we have deeper issues than that. 3. I'm not going to try to address items outside of this season. We can argue all day over the tournament losses versus the regular season success of the past, but I think we can all agree that this season was a special level of suck. 4. I'm not going to assess blame. Most of these things are a collective effort and trying to tease out where most of the blame lies is a fool's errand with the info we fans have. What I Don't Think It Is - Talent or Fit of TalentIf we were talking about making a run for a National Title, the concerns about talent and having all the pieces is 100% right. Trying to fit DSR as a creator, the lack of development of Tre Campbell and the last two years of individually flawed centers would have kept us, regardless of anything else, from being a Top 5 team. There's no doubt of that in my mind. And there's no doubt having an elite PG (or center, or anyone) would have completely transformed the team. No one's wrong when they call for that. But this team has enough to talent to make the tournament with a decent seed. It should have. It's not lacking in overall talent, and while the fit is also questionable, that's not entirely on the talent -- this talent could have worked together better. Problem #1 - Zero High Energy GuysI'm not going to call out the team for lack of effort. It's a tough thing to evaluate and it immediately goes to character when I think often it's not as conscious as people would like it to be. But here's the thing -- those high effort guys -- that's a skill. And easily identifiable. And we had Trawick, Hopkins, Bowen last year ... and this year we had Kaleb and maybe Mourning a little bit. But no one else. It's not a shock those guys were all plus defenders, and it's not a shock we had no real plus defenders on the squad or that we got killed on the boards or to 50/50 balls. This team simply did not put in the high level of effort for enough minutes of the game. The constant need to fuel comebacks show that. We need a better mix of on court intensity, and while Jagan seems like he brings that, and Kaleb can play more, I'm concerned this isn't going to change much next year unless someone steps it up here. And it's not normal for someone to step it up. Problem #2 - Our Fundamentals SuckI can't remember if it was the Providence game or the game right after, but I was watching the replay, and something about LJ Peak struck me. LJ played very well, for the most part, during Big East play, so I bring this up as something more indicative of the team than him in particular. But in this game, there was a stretch where he received a pass at the top of the three point arc four times in a row, wide open ... and not once was he in a position to catch and do anything with the ball. He'd be sideways to the basket, casually and lazily waiting for the ball. In the time it took him to orient, the defender recovered. Any offense predicated on moving the ball needs quick decision making and players ready to exploit the reacting defense. I don't think we were ready very often. One reason is the above -- we never we ready for the ball. Add in that on defense we don't seem to know how to move our feet and give ground -- which is how you have to play D these days -- and our basic footwork and positioning is a real problem. Defenders don't move right -- and they don't know where to be to help out other defenders. This normally isn't an issue with JTIII's teams. But the defense has been an issue for a couple of years and the offense was a real problem this year. I'm not going to guess at why -- it could be anything. Even focus on the court -- as in, the players know what to do and can do it ... they just aren't focused on being in the right spot, positioned in the right way, at the right time. But our offense is built not to need a great one on one creator, but it needs two things to be true: a team that plays well together and trusts the offense and the fundamentals to execute. We definitely lacked the latter. Can a summer change this? I dunno. We showed some spurts. But if it is focus, I question that as a learned skill. Problem #3 - We don't trust each other or the offense/defense schemesHow many open backdoor passes did we fail to make a game? I'd say about 3-4/game? How much did people stop cutting because of that? Who knows? The offense ran well when we were active and moved, and stagnated when the ball did. On defense, no matter how well we played at times, there were still 5 or so times a game it was apparent that someone completely lost their man or position. I saw this improve as the season went on. Even though they didn't get the results, on offense, at least, it seemed like they were eventually trying to make the right pass -- and they didn't give up on it the first time it didn't work. But you can only have an effective offense a couple of ways in basketball -- either have superior talent, or play well as a team. When compared to Kentucky or UNC, we're never going to have the former. So we better have the latter. That's all I got.I don't know if this gets better next year. We aren't increasing our net talent, but we get the sophomores and freshman another year of playing together, which can improve #2 and #3. We add Jagan Moseley, which could improve #1. One player likely isn't enough on #1, so we're left hoping for individual improvement and team play on the court. We have talent, so it could work out. But the overall lack of improvement on skillsets and especially the teamwork aspect has me scratching my head. It really could get better. But it should have already gotten better. It leaves me wondering if this team's bball IQ is low, or if the staff or players are checked out. And it leaves us relying on individual improvement, which I'm skeptical of truly making this a good team all on its own. Skills+Energy=Talent My point is with very few exceptions we overate our talent especially on the defensive side.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 21, 2016 17:06:03 GMT -5
I think this season showed the importance of having good role players who know that they are role players. Hopkins and Trawick sure appear to have been a lot more valuable now than anyone gave them credit for at the time.
In-game coaching is a lot more effective when you actually have a defense and rebounding lineup you can put in when you need stops; a small ball lineup that can actually handle the ball and defend opposing small ball lineups; and backups who can fill in capably when a player is injured or has foul trouble.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Mar 21, 2016 17:08:38 GMT -5
Can Agau help with #1? I don't know how he played in his 5 minutes at UL, but perhaps he could fill that role a bit? Jagan will definitely bring that to the table as will Kaleb. You are removing 30+ minutes of one of the lowest energy guys (but effective) in DSR and replacing it with what I hope is a better defensive group.
As for #2, this is 100% coaching. III should be drilling these guys in practice if they are not doing the basics like catching the ball in a triple threat position, using jab steps, shot fakes and communication to find ways to boost the offense. Guys should get benched for repeating these mistakes in games, including lack of communication on defense. How many times do we see a Hoya catch a ball and not even face the basket or in an awkward stance that leaves him with no immediate options? Attention to detail definitely seems to be missing from this group.
As for #3, that was a pet peeve of mine as we closed out the season. Watching Govan miss cutter after cutter was infuriating. People say the offense does not work, no offense works when your players are too tentative to pass the ball to his teammates. This also goes back to the common complaint of this team being a group of below average passers at nearly every position. Our big men were the worst group of passers I think we have had in the III era. No one is really good at facilitating. Not sure how that is going to change without personnel changes, hopefully a late addition PG will help or Mosely.
I do think Jagan will help with all of these areas, problem is he is just a freshman next season.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Mar 21, 2016 17:34:22 GMT -5
Aren't 1 AND 2 coaching? You can't tell me Butler happens to have high energy guys and we don't. Put another way does anyone think Othella, Ya-Ya, Ruben, or Shomnick were just caged beasts by personality? They played pretty good defense I'd say.
You have to find a way to energize your team. We consistently looked like Ben Carson gave our halftime speeches until we were down 15 or more. I'm not sure how it gets fixed but if it's not coming from the bench someone has to step up and lead on the floor.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 21, 2016 18:49:09 GMT -5
Good stuff, SF. I'm more concerned about the D than I am about the O. We improved on D, but not nearly to the point where we were passable.
On offense: Don't you think some individual improvement in, say, 3FG% would make a huge difference in and of itself, and isn't it not unreasonable to think that, say, Ike improves greatly in that area or that Jesse becomes an higher usage guy? I think that's the easiest way this team gets better. Not necessarily Ike, but offensive improvement in straight out shooting.
On the issue of trust in the system, I worry that passing ability and instinct (like effort) isn't an easily taught skill.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 21, 2016 23:05:40 GMT -5
Aren't 1 AND 2 coaching? You can't tell me Butler happens to have high energy guys and we don't. Put another way does anyone think Othella, Ya-Ya, Ruben, or Shomnick were just caged beasts by personality? They played pretty good defense I'd say. You have to find a way to energize your team. We consistently looked like Ben Carson gave our halftime speeches until we were down 15 or more. I'm not sure how it gets fixed but if it's not coming from the bench someone has to step up and lead on the floor. We've had highly ranked defenses and teams which displayed excellent fundamentals in the not too distant past. Why was this team so different, so bad? I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's because III forgot how to coach those things. Hope we get it figured out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 8:53:07 GMT -5
Hopefully he gets the gig.. Good guy he deserves a shot...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 8:55:26 GMT -5
HARRISONBURG – Sources say Georgetown assistant Kevin Sutton wants to be James Madison’s next basketball coach. Ex-University of Virginia star Curtis Staples said during a phone interview Monday that he’d be “shocked” if Madison doesn’t hire Sutton. “He’s a heck of a recruiter, so at the end of the day, they’re going to benefit like crazy and start having really great teams there if they make that hire,” Staples said. Sutton, a third-year assistant at Georgetown with recruiting ties up and down the East Coast and overseas, is a Madison alum who played at JMU under legendary coach Lou Campanelli. Staples is among the numerous stars Sutton – a 51-year-old Falls Church native – has coached at the prep level over the years. Ex-NBA veterans Cory Alexander (Virginia) and George Lynch (North Carolina) played for Sutton at Flint Hill Prep in Oakton, while college standouts Jason Capel (North Carolina), Nate James (Duke) and Staples played for Sutton at Prospect Hall in Frederick, Md. Lynch, James and Staples were McDonald’s All-Americans. As Staples put it, Sutton is a "superstar recruiter." “He’s a really personable guy,” Staples said of Sutton. “He takes private time with people. You know, you get a lot of fake people in this business – people do their jobs and move on. He’s not like that. He maintains relationships very well. I’ve been close with him since I was 16 years old; I turn 40 this summer. … That’s what he’s done with everybody. I’m not the only one that feels that way.” Sutton began his coaching career as a JMU graduate assistant from 1986-88 before making a name for himself as a coach on the prep level. www.dnronline.com/article/sutton_wants_jmu_job
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 23, 2016 12:17:13 GMT -5
Aren't 1 AND 2 coaching? You can't tell me Butler happens to have high energy guys and we don't. Put another way does anyone think Othella, Ya-Ya, Ruben, or Shomnick were just caged beasts by personality? They played pretty good defense I'd say. You have to find a way to energize your team. We consistently looked like Ben Carson gave our halftime speeches until we were down 15 or more. I'm not sure how it gets fixed but if it's not coming from the bench someone has to step up and lead on the floor. Regarding #1, I think there are some things a coach can do. He can recruit high energy guys. I think in short spurts, a coach can get something out of his team. At some point, though, my experience in life is that you can't force a massive and sustained change in effort in someone, and you definitely can't make a dude like DSR have energy like Ewing. That needs to come from the person. This is a lot of the reason I'm not really interested in trying to assign blame. Players aren't automatons that coaches need to flip the switch on, but coaches also choose who to recruit, and there are times when the staff and player doesn't connect. There's usually a little from column A and a little from column B and unless you are in the program, figuring out if its more on the staff or the player is silly. As for #2, I don't think you can call it 100% coaching. JTIII and staff have a long history of having fundamentally strong teams. Repeatedly, players head to the NBA and GMs gush over their fundamentals. While the team is not immune from sloppy play, like any, we routinely have excellent footwork, improving shots, etc., and until recently, strong defensive fundamentals. So yeah, some of it is coaching, but some of it is player effort, coachability and focus.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 23, 2016 12:21:56 GMT -5
Good stuff, SF. I'm more concerned about the D than I am about the O. We improved on D, but not nearly to the point where we were passable. On offense: Don't you think some individual improvement in, say, 3FG% would make a huge difference in and of itself, and isn't it not unreasonable to think that, say, Ike improves greatly in that area or that Jessie becomes an higher usage guy? I think that's the easiest way this team gets better. Not necessarily Ike, but offensive improvement in straight out shooting. On the issue of trust in the system, I worry that passing ability and instinct (like effort) isn't an easily taught skill. Agree that passing ability and effort are not easily taught. But I think there can be improvement on both. As for the offense, I think a lot of the reduction in 3pt % has to do with shot selection and our complete inability to move the ball quickly enough to create easy threes. It's absolutely amazing that this team, with the offense we run, could not generate more of them. Of course, you are right, we also missed a ton of open stuff. I do agree with you the best opportunity for improvement is that the talented players we have improve -- Jessie and Ike and LJ and... well...everyone.
|
|
BigmanU
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 915
|
Post by BigmanU on Mar 23, 2016 12:25:07 GMT -5
"you can calm down a fool better than you can resurrect a corpse."
JT Jr.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,488
|
Post by hoyaboya on Mar 23, 2016 12:31:54 GMT -5
HARRISONBURG – Sources say Georgetown assistant Kevin Sutton wants to be James Madison’s next basketball coach. Ex-University of Virginia star Curtis Staples said during a phone interview Monday that he’d be “shocked” if Madison doesn’t hire Sutton. “He’s a heck of a recruiter, so at the end of the day, they’re going to benefit like crazy and start having really great teams there if they make that hire,” Staples said. Sutton, a third-year assistant at Georgetown with recruiting ties up and down the East Coast and overseas, is a Madison alum who played at JMU under legendary coach Lou Campanelli. Staples is among the numerous stars Sutton – a 51-year-old Falls Church native – has coached at the prep level over the years. Ex-NBA veterans Cory Alexander (Virginia) and George Lynch (North Carolina) played for Sutton at Flint Hill Prep in Oakton, while college standouts Jason Capel (North Carolina), Nate James (Duke) and Staples played for Sutton at Prospect Hall in Frederick, Md. Lynch, James and Staples were McDonald’s All-Americans. As Staples put it, Sutton is a "superstar recruiter." “He’s a really personable guy,” Staples said of Sutton. “He takes private time with people. You know, you get a lot of fake people in this business – people do their jobs and move on. He’s not like that. He maintains relationships very well. I’ve been close with him since I was 16 years old; I turn 40 this summer. … That’s what he’s done with everybody. I’m not the only one that feels that way.” Sutton began his coaching career as a JMU graduate assistant from 1986-88 before making a name for himself as a coach on the prep level. www.dnronline.com/article/sutton_wants_jmu_jobVery interesting. This could be a win-win.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Mar 23, 2016 12:52:25 GMT -5
HARRISONBURG – Sources say Georgetown assistant Kevin Sutton wants to be James Madison’s next basketball coach. Ex-University of Virginia star Curtis Staples said during a phone interview Monday that he’d be “shocked” if Madison doesn’t hire Sutton. “He’s a heck of a recruiter, so at the end of the day, they’re going to benefit like crazy and start having really great teams there if they make that hire,” Staples said. Sutton, a third-year assistant at Georgetown with recruiting ties up and down the East Coast and overseas, is a Madison alum who played at JMU under legendary coach Lou Campanelli. Staples is among the numerous stars Sutton – a 51-year-old Falls Church native – has coached at the prep level over the years. Ex-NBA veterans Cory Alexander (Virginia) and George Lynch (North Carolina) played for Sutton at Flint Hill Prep in Oakton, while college standouts Jason Capel (North Carolina), Nate James (Duke) and Staples played for Sutton at Prospect Hall in Frederick, Md. Lynch, James and Staples were McDonald’s All-Americans. As Staples put it, Sutton is a "superstar recruiter." “He’s a really personable guy,” Staples said of Sutton. “He takes private time with people. You know, you get a lot of fake people in this business – people do their jobs and move on. He’s not like that. He maintains relationships very well. I’ve been close with him since I was 16 years old; I turn 40 this summer. … That’s what he’s done with everybody. I’m not the only one that feels that way.” Sutton began his coaching career as a JMU graduate assistant from 1986-88 before making a name for himself as a coach on the prep level. www.dnronline.com/article/sutton_wants_jmu_jobHasn't recruited very well here. So...see ya.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,224
|
Post by hoyarooter on Mar 23, 2016 19:55:26 GMT -5
"Any offense predicated on moving the ball needs quick decision making and players ready to exploit the reacting defense. I don't think we were ready very often. One reason is the above -- we never we ready for the ball. Add in that on defense we don't seem to know how to move our feet and give ground -- which is how you have to play D these days -- and our basic footwork and positioning is a real problem. Defenders don't move right -- and they don't know where to be to help out other defenders."
This is absolutely spot on. When you combine it with our guards often looking like they were standing in cement while trying to guard out on the perimeter, is it any wonder that our defense was bad and we committed fouls at an unprecedented rate?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Mar 24, 2016 6:09:58 GMT -5
Aren't 1 AND 2 coaching? You can't tell me Butler happens to have high energy guys and we don't. Put another way does anyone think Othella, Ya-Ya, Ruben, or Shomnick were just caged beasts by personality? They played pretty good defense I'd say. You have to find a way to energize your team. We consistently looked like Ben Carson gave our halftime speeches until we were down 15 or more. I'm not sure how it gets fixed but if it's not coming from the bench someone has to step up and lead on the floor. Regarding #1, I think there are some things a coach can do. He can recruit high energy guys. I think in short spurts, a coach can get something out of his team. At some point, though, my experience in life is that you can't force a massive and sustained change in effort in someone, and you definitely can't make a dude like DSR have energy like Ewing. That needs to come from the person. This is a lot of the reason I'm not really interested in trying to assign blame. Players aren't automatons that coaches need to flip the switch on, but coaches also choose who to recruit, and there are times when the staff and player doesn't connect. There's usually a little from column A and a little from column B and unless you are in the program, figuring out if its more on the staff or the player is silly. As for #2, I don't think you can call it 100% coaching. JTIII and staff have a long history of having fundamentally strong teams. Repeatedly, players head to the NBA and GMs gush over their fundamentals. While the team is not immune from sloppy play, like any, we routinely have excellent footwork, improving shots, etc., and until recently, strong defensive fundamentals. So yeah, some of it is coaching, but some of it is player effort, coachability and focus. You make a subtle point here I think is relevant and is what concerns me the most about our team. High energy players and fundamentals gushing seem to be reserved for our NBA players. If a kid is headed to the NBA, I think JTIII is a great coach. I'm concerned about the level of effort and execution we get from those middling guys. At some point Hopkins can't run the offense like Roy or Jeff and that's just how it is. But we seem to continue to hope and wish that of the guys we have, one will "pop". Four Lubick years later, that's not a great place to be. Meanwhile you see other teams that have 6'9 Frakensteins who play tough defense, offensive rebound, and can hit a 12-footer. They can't thread passes, hit threes, or switch on guards but are never asked to. The issue doesn't come down to whose "fault" it is, but the coach is the one who has to be honest with himself and set his respective players up to succeed. That's not about making low energy guys high energy all the time and limited guys 5-tool players. It's about realizing what they are and using them appropriately.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 24, 2016 7:49:40 GMT -5
Regarding #1, I think there are some things a coach can do. He can recruit high energy guys. I think in short spurts, a coach can get something out of his team. At some point, though, my experience in life is that you can't force a massive and sustained change in effort in someone, and you definitely can't make a dude like DSR have energy like Ewing. That needs to come from the person. This is a lot of the reason I'm not really interested in trying to assign blame. Players aren't automatons that coaches need to flip the switch on, but coaches also choose who to recruit, and there are times when the staff and player doesn't connect. There's usually a little from column A and a little from column B and unless you are in the program, figuring out if its more on the staff or the player is silly. As for #2, I don't think you can call it 100% coaching. JTIII and staff have a long history of having fundamentally strong teams. Repeatedly, players head to the NBA and GMs gush over their fundamentals. While the team is not immune from sloppy play, like any, we routinely have excellent footwork, improving shots, etc., and until recently, strong defensive fundamentals. So yeah, some of it is coaching, but some of it is player effort, coachability and focus. You make a subtle point here I think is relevant and is what concerns me the most about our team. High energy players and fundamentals gushing seem to be reserved for our NBA players. If a kid is headed to the NBA, I think JTIII is a great coach. I'm concerned about the level of effort and execution we get from those middling guys. At some point Hopkins can't run the offense like Roy or Jeff and that's just how it is. But we seem to continue to hope and wish that of the guys we have, one will "pop". Four Lubick years later, that's not a great place to be. Meanwhile you see other teams that have 6'9 Frakensteins who play tough defense, offensive rebound, and can hit a 12-footer. They can't thread passes, hit threes, or switch on guards but are never asked to. The issue doesn't come down to whose "fault" it is, but the coach is the one who has to be honest with himself and set his respective players up to succeed. That's not about making low energy guys high energy all the time and limited guys 5-tool players. It's about realizing what they are and using them appropriately. Lubick is an interesting example. He always seemed like a high effort guy to me. Not a slap the floor or flex his muscles type. But always giving 100% out there. And he did play good fundamental defense and offensive rebound. Obviously, he couldn't hit a wide-open 12-footer to save his life. But he fit the rest of your bill. That 12 footer is crucial. It doesn't matter how good a passer our four or five is -- if he can't hit at least an elbow jumper, he'll never get the chance to show off his passing and the lane will generally be clogged. That said, I do think we've done a pretty good job in the past few years of identifying when we have fours and fives that can't hit that shot and using them primarily as screeners or in the post. And that's what all teams do with those guys (just as all teams have their fours and fives handle the ball out top in many sets to facilitate movement, as much as some of our fans think otherwise). That's what we did with Josh the past two years. He didn't spend a ton of time at the elbow looking for cutters. When he got the ball out top it was either to facilitate movement or to engage in a dribble/hand-off, which is similar to a PNR. Marcus and Jesse are huge wildcards moving forward. We know they can hit that elbow shot (and much more). So, we know they'll demand defensive attention and open things up. But can they pass effectively (clearly the answer was no this year)? Can they be weapons in the post (right now they're not)? And, perhaps most important, can they play decent fundamental defense, such that they at a minimum aren't a "minus" on that side of the court? Marcus is closer than Jesse right now. Finally, the hope is that Agau is the sort of Frankenstein you're talking about. But who knows?
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,362
|
Post by calhoya on Mar 24, 2016 9:57:51 GMT -5
You make a subtle point here I think is relevant and is what concerns me the most about our team. High energy players and fundamentals gushing seem to be reserved for our NBA players. If a kid is headed to the NBA, I think JTIII is a great coach. I'm concerned about the level of effort and execution we get from those middling guys. At some point Hopkins can't run the offense like Roy or Jeff and that's just how it is. But we seem to continue to hope and wish that of the guys we have, one will "pop". Four Lubick years later, that's not a great place to be. Meanwhile you see other teams that have 6'9 Frakensteins who play tough defense, offensive rebound, and can hit a 12-footer. They can't thread passes, hit threes, or switch on guards but are never asked to. The issue doesn't come down to whose "fault" it is, but the coach is the one who has to be honest with himself and set his respective players up to succeed. That's not about making low energy guys high energy all the time and limited guys 5-tool players. It's about realizing what they are and using them appropriately. Lubick is an interesting example. He always seemed like a high effort guy to me. Not a slap the floor or flex his muscles type. But always giving 100% out there. And he did play good fundamental defense and offensive rebound. Obviously, he couldn't hit a wide-open 12-footer to save his life. But he fit the rest of your bill. That 12 footer is crucial. It doesn't matter how good a passer our four or five is -- if he can't hit at least an elbow jumper, he'll never get the chance to show off his passing and the lane will generally be clogged. That said, I do think we've done a pretty good job in the past few years of identifying when we have fours and fives that can't hit that shot and using them primarily as screeners or in the post. And that's what all teams do with those guys (just as all teams have their fours and fives handle the ball out top in many sets to facilitate movement, as much as some of our fans think otherwise). That's what we did with Josh the past two years. He didn't spend a ton of time at the elbow looking for cutters. When he got the ball out top it was either to facilitate movement or to engage in a dribble/hand-off, which is similar to a PNR. Marcus and Jesse are huge wildcards moving forward. We know they can hit that elbow shot (and much more). So, we know they'll demand defensive attention and open things up. But can they pass effectively (clearly the answer was no this year)? Can they be weapons in the post (right now they're not)? And, perhaps most important, can they play decent fundamental defense, such that they at a minimum aren't a "minus" on that side of the court? Marcus is closer than Jesse right now. Finally, the hope is that Agau is the sort of Frankenstein you're talking about. But who knows? Agree with your statement that there is still a role for bigs who cannot shoot from the outside to come up top and set a screen to facilitate ball movement. However, dribble/hand-offs and ball screens up top are of limited value without at least the threat of offense from the big on the outside. As we saw repeatedly this year with Hayes, it simply did not work very often as his man would drop off to guard the lane preventing a drive or cut into the lane and the rest of the defenders would strictly play the screen. Now when our outside shooters could utilize the screen and hit the shot off the dribble it worked somewhat, but with a team that generally was not good at 3 point shots, or at best was very streaky, this caused major breakdowns in the structure of the offense and the flow. It also took the one reliable rebounder 12-15 feet away from the basket and almost assured that we got only one shot. I believe that the point that this team simply has not had the bigs to fully gain the benefit of the offense we run is valid. Hopkins,Lubick, Hayes and Smith were all unable to pose any threat from 12-15 feet. I have hope for Govan as he gets more comfortable with the ball and learns to make quicker and more instinctive decisions.
|
|