guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Mar 28, 2016 22:56:38 GMT -5
It's not relevant and you are running in circles. You are talking about two players from 2007 and how they were more talented than we are now? I won't argue the 2007 team was more talented and as was mentioned they were the prior regimes recruits that gave our current coach his start. Not trying to insult just try to have a point. Even your post there makes no sense from start to finish. "The only main difference we really have had is the coaching situation." Seems to be the same coach to me? One that earlier inherited great recruits and made a Final 4 and now the same one that can't put it together. Stop talking in circles. I think you're getting confused, so, let me be clear: (1) My main point was that you win with talent. The Final Four 2007 team featuring Jeff Green, Roy Hibbert, Dajuan Summers, Macklin, and Patrick Ewing had 5 NBA players. One of them, Jeff Green, was a lotto pick, and has had a very solid NBA career (most guys don't last this long). Roy Hibbert left in 2008, and was drafted 17. I was wrong and he was not a lotto pick. But, Roy Hibbert has also had a successful NBA career, including two appearances in the All Star game. (2) Talent generally wins, and we clearly had it in 2007. Not only did we have the 5 NBA players above, but we had Wallace who was an excellent guard, as well as other good supporting players. (3) Since 2007, we have never had a team with that level of talent. The only other players who have reached similar levels in the NBA are Greg Monroe and Otto Porter. Monroe played with Sims before he turned it around. Porter played a season with Hollis Thompson. And those teams, especially the 2013 team, had fairly weak supporting players. That's really all I am saying. Do I think the 2015-2016 Hoyas were as talented as the 2007 team? Absolutely not. Will 5 guys from that roster ever sniff the NBA, never mind being an All Star? Hey, I would love it if that happened, but it's looking unlikely at the moment. When I said, "the only main difference we really have had is the coaching," I mean whether we should get a new coach. Clearly, we have had significant disagreements there. But, I think we both agree that this season was unacceptable and we need to get better. No one is confused, despite your circular logic (and I'm using the word logic very loosely there). To argue that the cause of the current run of non-achievement is a lack of talent is simply wrong. Short of a few recent Kentucky and duke teams and a few odd others, we have had the talent to compete and win against just about every team in the country the past few seasons. We just haven't done it often or, more importantly, when it actually matters. We waxed the floor with a final four team this season and you want to hang your hat on "lack of talent"? No, no, friend. Despite a miguided roster-building philosophy, this group had talent, as the team has had enough talent for an extended tourney run for several years now. Talent is not the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 5:34:30 GMT -5
Yeah I mean I thought the guys kept fighting they just didnt win especially in BE play... The record is what we are.. 5 minute scoring droughts dont happen because lack of effort thats usually a result of poor execution.... Not scary imo.. offense was set up to go through Dsr and LJ was still coming off the bench. Batman doesn't come off the bench imo.. The end if LJs soph season felt like the end of Ottos freshman season to me. Think he's set up for a big year I'll give you the scoring droughts but giving up 45+ points in a half which they did a lot late in the season indicates some lack of effort in my view.. Agree on LJ but for the team to be successful others need to join him, coaching staff too.. Idk could be but to me it's deeper than that.... We started Jessie Marcus Ike DSR and Tre. That looks like a lineup capable of giving up 45 to me. Who are the stoppers in that group? Team wide I would say after LJ and Kaleb there was a sizeable drop off to the next best defensive player on this team. Imo moving forward we need someone like Kaleb to put on some weight and become the defensive stopper on the wing like Mikael Bridges has been for Nova lately while decreasing his foul rate. We need Akoy to provide a presence like Hop did on the boards, D, and vocally and especially guarding PNR. We need Jagan to help guarding smaller players and provide another good defender on the perimeter. We also need those guys to be good enough offensively to stay on the court to a certain extent. In addition to that as you alluded to we need other guys to improve and the coaching staff needs to define these roles EARLY and figure out what defense and strategies to use to max our talent on that side. I think a lineup of the 3 players mentioned, LJ, and insert Paul/Ike looks on paper like one you could go to if you needed a stop. I have no idea what our best defensive lineup was this year tbh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 6:27:51 GMT -5
Maybe it's because your posts aren't remaining objective. Yeah there weren't two players drafted in the first round, but if you don't think there was talent on the team Otto's freshman year than I don't know what to tell you. Sure Roy had a good season or two. (One postseason?) but he's been hot garbage for years so no need to act like he's some untouchable talent. Same goes for Jeff. He was immensely talented and great for us, but Otto is going to have a more productive pro and Henry was also on that team, as was Hollis (been pretty productive in the NBA despite not much chatter on here about him), Jason was first team All-BE, Whitt is an NBA talent as well and will make his was onto a roster sooner rather than later. Which is remarkable considering his character and injury concerns. Our problem isn't a lack of talent. Look at that squad UVA rolled out all year, Cuse's top 7. Fact is, they did much more with less. Problem wasn't talent it was teamwork and communication. ESPECIALLY communication on defense. Just talking basketball I think this is an interesting debate because I think talent means different thing to different people. Many people would say Ike is more talented than say Josh Hart, or at least as talented, but Josh Harts status is based on the numbers he's producing now while Ike's is based on what he will be in the future. Since we're a College team that future projection means little. His "talent" says possible 1st rounder but his production currently says "no rounder" lol. Same goes for Jessie, his production hasn't caught up to his talent yet. When we describe a team as talented are we talking about them currently based on production, or what they could be doing in the future. That is the question We need to figure out how to turn our talent into production. If we do not obviously we will continue to be a poor team. That being said kids also progress at their own pace not ours so hopefully for our sake this is the summer when that jump happens. If Ike comes out next year playing at the level of a 1st rounder obviously we go to another level same for Jessie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 9:24:16 GMT -5
A lot of well thought out and well reasoned posts. However, I would like to go back to the question I posed. Looking at the guard play we have seen in the NCAA tourney, how much has our guard play (or lack thereof) contributed to our poor season?? A really talented guard can penetrate and then, depending on the situation, either pass off or finish. I am not sure we have a player on our roster who has those skills. LJ, almost never passes the once he penetrates. Fortunately, he is so talented, that he frequently can finish in spite of dribbling into a crowd. I would be interested in your view points on this.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 29, 2016 9:36:11 GMT -5
A lot of well thought out and well reasoned posts. However, I would like to go back to the question I posed. Looking at the guard play we have seen in the NCAA tourney, how much has our guard play (or lack thereof) contributed to our poor season?? A really talented guard can penetrate and then, depending on the situation, either pass off or finish. I am not sure we have a player on our roster who has those skills. LJ, almost never passes the once he penetrates. Fortunately, he is so talented, that he frequently can finish in spite of dribbling into a crowd. I would be interested in your view points on this. I think it contributed a lot. But I wouldn't limit it to "guard play." I would broaden it to the specific skill-set (penetrate effectively and either score or dish) that you describe. It can be a three or a four that brings that skill set. (Look at Niang on Iowa State, as one example.) In some cases it can even be a five (by drawing doubles in the post and effectively finding open men -- Ochefu is very good at that; Josh wasn't terrible at it last year for us). That last example is not as fool-proof, because he has to get the ball in the post first unlike a penetrating guard, but it's effective too. The point is that if LJ had, I think, been better at the dishing part, we'd have been a lot better this year. Or if anyone else could have beaten their man and gotten into the lane and drawn help, we'd have been better. DSR couldn't. But just as importantly, Ike and Marcus couldn't either. (And both of our fives were bad passers.) I think if any of them was capable of somewhat consistently drawing help (either one on one or through a PNR), we'd have been an NCAA team this year, even given our putrid defense. To be better next year offensively, we'll need at least one guy on the court that can do it. LJ is the most obvious possibility, but he may not realistically add that skill. Otherwise, you'd hope Ike or Marcus gets quicker with the ball. Or that we bring someone in that can. (I suppose Jesse could suddenly draw doubles and/or develop into a plus passer, but that seems less likely.) (The added plus is that if you're quick enough to get by your man and draw help, you're usually quick enough to be at least an adequate defender.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 9:41:24 GMT -5
Thanks. Nice insight and some other good points I hadn't thought of
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 29, 2016 11:03:14 GMT -5
No one is confused, despite your circular logic (and I'm using the word logic very loosely there). To argue that the cause of the current run of non-achievement is a lack of talent is simply wrong. Short of a few recent Kentucky and duke teams and a few odd others, we have had the talent to compete and win against just about every team in the country the past few seasons. We just haven't done it often or, more importantly, when it actually matters. We waxed the floor with a final four team this season and you want to hang your hat on "lack of talent"? No, no, friend. Despite a miguided roster-building philosophy, this group had talent, as the team has had enough talent for an extended tourney run for several years now. Talent is not the issue. I do think there remains some confusion because there was no circular logic. I really think your view of "talent" is skewed. Do we have talent? Of course, we have talented players, and we should have played better than we did this past season. And yes, I agree with you that, for example, in 2013, we clearly had enough talent to beat FGCU. We are in agreement there. Where we disagree, is that I do not think that we are on the same level as the teams that recruit one-and-done players regularly. There aren't many (generally, these are the blue bloods), but any year there are maybe 10-15 programs that recruit that way, and we are generally not among them. I mean, we've literally never had a one-and-done recruit. We have good, solid, college level talent, but I would not say we have "elite" talent like a lot of others. Occasionally, we get lucky and somebody like Porter turns out to be in that class, but generally when we recruit guys, they are not at that level. Do you need that "elite" one-and-done talent to win games against the best? No. Villanova proves that, and I think that really needs to be our model going forward, because I think it's unrealistic for Georgetown to get the one-and-done types, at least in the present situation. But, I would add that Villanova basically had the same team last year, and they did not get past the first weekend. Now, this year, they have matured and gotten better, and the results are better in March. But, to say "talent is not the issue" is simply wrong. We had nobody on the team this year who could defend well, maybe aside from Peak and maybe Kaleb. All the "talent" in the world is not going to get you anywhere if you cannot execute basic defensive skills. I think in many circumstances, people equate "talent" with athleticism. For example, is Copeland very athletic? Absolutely. Is he even an average defender? Absolutely not. And that had a huge impact on our team, along with other guys who also were subpar defenders. "Talent" gets you nowhere if people don't perform. For example, nobody ever gushed over the pure "talent" of Jon Wallace, but he was a great guard for the team because he was a great shooter and he performed well.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Mar 29, 2016 11:23:36 GMT -5
No one is confused, despite your circular logic (and I'm using the word logic very loosely there). To argue that the cause of the current run of non-achievement is a lack of talent is simply wrong. Short of a few recent Kentucky and duke teams and a few odd others, we have had the talent to compete and win against just about every team in the country the past few seasons. We just haven't done it often or, more importantly, when it actually matters. We waxed the floor with a final four team this season and you want to hang your hat on "lack of talent"? No, no, friend. Despite a miguided roster-building philosophy, this group had talent, as the team has had enough talent for an extended tourney run for several years now. Talent is not the issue. I do think there remains some confusion because there was no circular logic. I really think your view of "talent" is skewed. Do we have talent? Of course, we have talented players, and we should have played better than we did this past season. And yes, I agree with you that, for example, in 2013, we clearly had enough talent to beat FGCU. We are in agreement there. Where we disagree, is that I do not think that we are on the same level as the teams that recruit one-and-done players regularly. There aren't many (generally, these are the blue bloods), but any year there are maybe 10-15 programs that recruit that way, and we are generally not among them. I mean, we've literally never had a one-and-done recruit. We have good, solid, college level talent, but I would not say we have "elite" talent like a lot of others. Occasionally, we get lucky and somebody like Porter turns out to be in that class, but generally when we recruit guys, they are not at that level. Do you need that "elite" one-and-done talent to win games against the best? No. Villanova proves that, and I think that really needs to be our model going forward, because I think it's unrealistic for Georgetown to get the one-and-done types, at least in the present situation. But, I would add that Villanova basically had the same team last year, and they did not get past the first weekend. Now, this year, they have matured and gotten better, and the results are better in March. But, to say "talent is not the issue" is simply wrong. We had nobody on the team this year who could defend well, maybe aside from Peak and maybe Kaleb. All the "talent" in the world is not going to get you anywhere if you cannot execute basic defensive skills. I think in many circumstances, people equate "talent" with athleticism. For example, is Copeland very athletic? Absolutely. Is he even an average defender? Absolutely not. And that had a huge impact on our team, along with other guys who also were subpar defenders. "Talent" gets you nowhere if people don't perform. For example, nobody ever gushed over the pure "talent" of Jon Wallace, but he was a great guard for the team because he was a great shooter and he performed well. So do you want to talk about talent - as in talent that translates to NBA careers, as you have previously pointed to in this thread - or do you want to talk about "talent" Jon Wallace style? Those aren't the same thing, and yet you are using the word interchangeably. Hence, the circular logic. The 2009 team had 3 NBA guys on it and stunk. This year's team has multiple players with NBA potential and was terrible. Who cares if they are one and dones? That's you moving your goalposts again. It's tiresome. Look at most of the teams that have made the Final Four since we last did - aside from the true factories (UK, Duke, UNC, etc.), many of those rosters are full of guys who ended up playing in the NBDL or abroad, just like our roster has been. Look at UVA the past several seasons - not a one and done among them, and probably not many NBA guys. No Final Fours either, of course, but I think every last one of us would trade our last five seasons for theirs. No, sir. The issue is not talent (dictionary definition: natural aptitude or skill). We have had more than enough talented players over the past few seasons to win games and win when they matter most. We have not done that. And not because we have lacked talent.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 29, 2016 11:23:55 GMT -5
Maybe it's because your posts aren't remaining objective. Yeah there weren't two players drafted in the first round, but if you don't think there was talent on the team Otto's freshman year than I don't know what to tell you. Sure Roy had a good season or two. (One postseason?) but he's been hot garbage for years so no need to act like he's some untouchable talent. Same goes for Jeff. He was immensely talented and great for us, but Otto is going to have a more productive pro and Henry was also on that team, as was Hollis (been pretty productive in the NBA despite not much chatter on here about him), Jason was first team All-BE, Whitt is an NBA talent as well and will make his was onto a roster sooner rather than later. Which is remarkable considering his character and injury concerns. Our problem isn't a lack of talent. Look at that squad UVA rolled out all year, Cuse's top 7. Fact is, they did much more with less. rock, I think it's ironic that you're telling me that I am not objective, but you are calling Hibbert "hot garbage" and implying that this year's team was as talented as the 2007 team. First, the 2007 team was clearly more talented. The fact that Jeff Green was a lotto pick, and that Roy Hibbert got drafted in the first round demonstrate that. Both of them were absolutely elite college players. In 2007, Roy Hibbert was the 4th most efficient player nationally (130.8, an amazing number). He shot 67.1%, he was a great offensive rebounder, and a good defensive rebounder. He was also one of the best shot blockers in the country. Jeff Green also put up really great stats that year, as did Wallace (who shot 49.0% on threes with 149 attempts!). You also had really solid contributors in Patrick Ewing Jr, Summers, and others. Not only did they perform well, but the 2007 team also fit together perfectly. Everybody had a role and everybody performed well in those roles. Flash forward to 2015-2016. We did not have any players that played at or near the level of Hibbert, Green, or even Jon Wallace, offensively or defensively. It's not even close. I never said that Georgetown never had talent. Of course, we have talent and have had talent. Otto Porter was great on the level of Green/Hibbert his sophomore year, but he really had few supporting players (and basically no frontcourt to speak of). Greg Whittington didn't even play with Porter that season because he was injured and thrown out, and quite frankly, while he was a good defender, he was never a strong offensive player for Georgetown. The 2007 team was the most talented and highest performing team we have had under JT3, and it's not even close. PS. As for Roy Hibbert, he was an elite college player, he has been in the NBA 8 seasons, he has been a starter the entire time, and he is a 2 time All Star. He's definitely declined over the last couple of seasons, but he's still a starter with the Lakers, and a solid contributor (if diminished from where he had been a few seasons ago). That's not "hot garbage."
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Mar 29, 2016 11:33:37 GMT -5
Maybe it's because your posts aren't remaining objective. Yeah there weren't two players drafted in the first round, but if you don't think there was talent on the team Otto's freshman year than I don't know what to tell you. Sure Roy had a good season or two. (One postseason?) but he's been hot garbage for years so no need to act like he's some untouchable talent. Same goes for Jeff. He was immensely talented and great for us, but Otto is going to have a more productive pro and Henry was also on that team, as was Hollis (been pretty productive in the NBA despite not much chatter on here about him), Jason was first team All-BE, Whitt is an NBA talent as well and will make his was onto a roster sooner rather than later. Which is remarkable considering his character and injury concerns. Our problem isn't a lack of talent. Look at that squad UVA rolled out all year, Cuse's top 7. Fact is, they did much more with less. rock, I think it's ironic that you're telling me that I am not objective, but you are calling Hibbert "hot garbage" and implying that this year's team was as talented as the 2007 team. First, the 2007 team was clearly more talented. The fact that Jeff Green was a lotto pick, and that Roy Hibbert got drafted in the first round demonstrate that. Both of them were absolutely elite college players. In 2007, Roy Hibbert was the 4th most efficient player nationally (130.8, an amazing number). He shot 67.1%, he was a great offensive rebounder, and a good defensive rebounder. He was also one of the best shot blockers in the country. Jeff Green also put up really great stats that year, as did Wallace (who shot 49.0% on threes with 149 attempts!). You also had really solid contributors in Patrick Ewing Jr, Summers, and others. Not only did they perform well, but the 2007 team also fit together perfectly. Everybody had a role and everybody performed well in those roles. Flash forward to 2015-2016. We did not have any players that played at or near the level of Hibbert, Green, or even Jon Wallace, offensively or defensively. It's not even close. I never said that Georgetown never had talent. Of course, we have talent and have had talent. Otto Porter was great on the level of Green/Hibbert his sophomore year, but he really had few supporting players (and basically no frontcourt to speak of). Greg Whittington didn't even play with Porter that season because he was injured and thrown out, and quite frankly, while he was a good defender, he was never a strong offensive player for Georgetown. The 2007 team was the most talented and highest performing team we have had under JT3, and it's not even close. PS. As for Roy Hibbert, he was an elite college player, he has been in the NBA 8 seasons, he has been a starter the entire time, and he is a 2 time All Star. He's definitely declined over the last couple of seasons, but he's still a starter with the Lakers, and a solid contributor (if diminished from where he had been a few seasons ago). That's not "hot garbage." What's funny is that you are actually arguing that all of our talent recently simply hasn't performed, and it's hard for any rational person not to place much, or at least some, of the blame for that on their coach. But as that's not an option for you, you continue to spew nonsense. And though I think JT3 has hugely underperformed for over half a decade and think he'd be gone without his last name, I don't see all that many pitchforks around here. A few, yes. And many angry and upset posters. He has proven he could coach at one point, and I'm rooting for him to rediscover that ability. You operate under the assumption that everyone who doesn't agree with you is demanding that he be canned immediately. Clearly, that's not happening, and though at my most frustrated moments I have uttered the F word about JT3, the best case scenario is that he pulls his head out of his lawn care loving tuchus and starts winning games. In the meantime, those of us who love this program are entitled to point out its many, many, many recent flaws. Just as you are entitled to ignore those flaws. You are one dogged SOB, I'll give you that much.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 29, 2016 11:38:08 GMT -5
So do you want to talk about talent - as in talent that translates to NBA careers, as you have previously pointed to in this thread - or do you want to talk about "talent" Jon Wallace style? Those aren't the same thing, and yet you are using the word interchangeably. Hence, the circular logic. No, that isn't circular logic. It might be two different concepts, but it's not circular logic. I think the only type of "talent" that matters is talent that equals performance in college. Generally, players who have NBA talent are excellent performers in college, though not always. "NBA potential" is meaningless if guys cannot perform in college. The world is full of players with "NBA potential" who never even make it to the NBA, or if they make it, they barely scratch the surface. I don't really care about NBA potential, if the player is not going to be a good college player. I am also not going to use HoyaTalk's evaluation of NBA potential, given that people here have grossly overstated the potential of our players over the years. I specifically recall one person who insisted that Campbell would be in the NBA after his sophomore year.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 29, 2016 11:44:46 GMT -5
What's funny is that you are actually arguing that all of our talent recently simply hasn't performed, and it's hard for any rational person not to place much, or at least some, of the blame for that on their coach. But as that's not an option for you, you continue to spew nonsense. And though I think JT3 has hugely underperformed for over half a decade and think he'd be gone without his last name, I don't see all that many pitchforks around here. A few, yes. And many angry and upset posters. He has proven he could coach at one point, and I'm rooting for him to rediscover that ability. You operate under the assumption that everyone who doesn't agree with you is demanding that he be canned immediately. Clearly, that's not happening, and though at my most frustrated moments I have uttered the F word about JT3, the best case scenario is that he pulls his head out of his lawn care loving tuchus and starts winning games. In the meantime, those of us who love this program are entitled to point out its many, many, many recent flaws. Just as you are entitled to ignore those flaws. You are one dogged SOB, I'll give you that much. Our talent has certainly underperformed in March, I won't argue with you there. Other than March, I don't necessarily agree. I would add that part of the narrative of "underperformance" is because we have had a number of high seeds in the NCAA tournament and blown them by losing. Getting those high seeds is pretty good evidence that our teams performed well in the regular seasons. And yes, you're more than welcome to point out whatever you want. You were the one who told me to stop posting yesterday, not vice-versa. The funny thing is I don't think we are actually as far apart, in reality, as it seems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 11:51:26 GMT -5
A lot of well thought out and well reasoned posts. However, I would like to go back to the question I posed. Looking at the guard play we have seen in the NCAA tourney, how much has our guard play (or lack thereof) contributed to our poor season?? A really talented guard can penetrate and then, depending on the situation, either pass off or finish. I am not sure we have a player on our roster who has those skills. LJ, almost never passes the once he penetrates. Fortunately, he is so talented, that he frequently can finish in spite of dribbling into a crowd. I would be interested in your view points on this. Yep IMO We don't need another shooter we need a playmaking guard or Playmaking forward (Paul) who can make our shooters better.. Reggie Marcus etc can all shoot it pretty good if they have space put a hand in their face not so much. Make them take a dribble not so much... Basically these articles describe my thinking. You don't need a Chris Paul and we're not going to find one for next year right now but you do need a guy who can create offense for guys when things stagnate. A guy who can get in the lane and find open shooters. We didn't have anyone and it's tough to win that way. imo.... bleacherreport.com/articles/401541-the-steve-nash-effect-8-players-whose-careers-were-defined-by-nashNash espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/clippers/post/_/id/4842/the-chris-paul-effectThe Chris Paul Bump For as misguided as the “true point guard” qualifier may be, there is plenty of evidence that suggests Paul positively impacts his teammates’ performance like no one else in the league. Let’s start on the team level. Last year, with Chris Paul on the floor, the Clippers posted an offensive rating (points per 100 possessions) of 116.5. For the sake of comparison, the Oklahoma City Thunder was the league’s best offense with a rating of 112.4.Compare Paul’s 116.5 rating with other players on better teams with better coaches, and he still shines. Tony Parker, a popular non-Paul choice for the best point guard throne last year, registered a 110.5 number. Russell Westbrook was at 113.7. Kevin Durant? 114.1. LeBron James? Tied with Paul at 116.5. It’s probably worth stressing that Paul played with a starting lineup that included Willie Green, Caron Butler and DeAndre Jordan offensively. That’s not exactly a murderer’s row.
|
|
lda05816
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 606
|
Post by lda05816 on Mar 29, 2016 11:57:57 GMT -5
I've always thought when people talk about talent, they are referring to the physical attributes or tools of a player. So when people talk about Ike being talented, it makes sense to me. He has the tools to be a very good player and potential 1st round draft pick in the future. But as stated above, his production does not match that at the moment. I totally agree that kids progress at their own rate. We were still a young team this year and another summer to get better could be huge for certain players, especially given the motivation of a bad year.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Mar 29, 2016 12:12:20 GMT -5
What's funny is that you are actually arguing that all of our talent recently simply hasn't performed, and it's hard for any rational person not to place much, or at least some, of the blame for that on their coach. But as that's not an option for you, you continue to spew nonsense. And though I think JT3 has hugely underperformed for over half a decade and think he'd be gone without his last name, I don't see all that many pitchforks around here. A few, yes. And many angry and upset posters. He has proven he could coach at one point, and I'm rooting for him to rediscover that ability. You operate under the assumption that everyone who doesn't agree with you is demanding that he be canned immediately. Clearly, that's not happening, and though at my most frustrated moments I have uttered the F word about JT3, the best case scenario is that he pulls his head out of his lawn care loving tuchus and starts winning games. In the meantime, those of us who love this program are entitled to point out its many, many, many recent flaws. Just as you are entitled to ignore those flaws. You are one dogged SOB, I'll give you that much. Our talent has certainly underperformed in March, I won't argue with you there. Other than March, I don't necessarily agree. I would add that part of the narrative of "underperformance" is because we have had a number of high seeds in the NCAA tournament and blown them by losing. Getting those high seeds is pretty good evidence that our teams performed well in the regular seasons. And yes, you're more than welcome to point out whatever you want. You were the one who told me to stop posting yesterday, not vice-versa. The funny thing is I don't think we are actually as far apart, in reality, as it seems. Don't believe I told you to stop posting? Maybe just to slow down a bit? You are posting quite a lot on this topic, lic style! Though I suppose I'm enabling you as well.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Mar 29, 2016 12:48:48 GMT -5
Maybe it's because your posts aren't remaining objective. Yeah there weren't two players drafted in the first round, but if you don't think there was talent on the team Otto's freshman year than I don't know what to tell you. Sure Roy had a good season or two. (One postseason?) but he's been hot garbage for years so no need to act like he's some untouchable talent. Same goes for Jeff. He was immensely talented and great for us, but Otto is going to have a more productive pro and Henry was also on that team, as was Hollis (been pretty productive in the NBA despite not much chatter on here about him), Jason was first team All-BE, Whitt is an NBA talent as well and will make his was onto a roster sooner rather than later. Which is remarkable considering his character and injury concerns. Our problem isn't a lack of talent. Look at that squad UVA rolled out all year, Cuse's top 7. Fact is, they did much more with less. rock, I think it's ironic that you're telling me that I am not objective, but you are calling Hibbert "hot garbage" and implying that this year's team was as talented as the 2007 team. First, the 2007 team was clearly more talented. The fact that Jeff Green was a lotto pick, and that Roy Hibbert got drafted in the first round demonstrate that. Both of them were absolutely elite college players. In 2007, Roy Hibbert was the 4th most efficient player nationally (130.8, an amazing number). He shot 67.1%, he was a great offensive rebounder, and a good defensive rebounder. He was also one of the best shot blockers in the country. Jeff Green also put up really great stats that year, as did Wallace (who shot 49.0% on threes with 149 attempts!). You also had really solid contributors in Patrick Ewing Jr, Summers, and others. Not only did they perform well, but the 2007 team also fit together perfectly. Everybody had a role and everybody performed well in those roles. Flash forward to 2015-2016. We did not have any players that played at or near the level of Hibbert, Green, or even Jon Wallace, offensively or defensively. It's not even close. I never said that Georgetown never had talent. Of course, we have talent and have had talent. Otto Porter was great on the level of Green/Hibbert his sophomore year, but he really had few supporting players (and basically no frontcourt to speak of). Greg Whittington didn't even play with Porter that season because he was injured and thrown out, and quite frankly, while he was a good defender, he was never a strong offensive player for Georgetown. The 2007 team was the most talented and highest performing team we have had under JT3, and it's not even close. PS. As for Roy Hibbert, he was an elite college player, he has been in the NBA 8 seasons, he has been a starter the entire time, and he is a 2 time All Star. He's definitely declined over the last couple of seasons, but he's still a starter with the Lakers, and a solid contributor (if diminished from where he had been a few seasons ago). That's not "hot garbage." First, Roy has been hot garbage for a few seasons now. That is FACT. Take the glasses off. Henry is honestly more productive than him despite being on a 10-day contract. Secondly, where in my post did I imply that that 2012 team was as talented as 2007? You're acting like its a zero sum game. They both had talented and one team performed better than the other. If the refs had called Jeff for his travel against Vandy, that was no more than a sweet sixteen team and that 2012 team came within three points of being in the sweet sixteen themselves (NC State had a physically mature frontline that year and good guard play). My point being, if you're trying to look at tournament results as signs of talent you're looking in the wrong place. Just look at the teams themselves and evaluate them objectively. Neither Roy nor Jeff improved their play past their rookie contracts. Greg and Hollis combined almost have as much professional success (we're they on the team at he same time?) and they absolutely Edited the bed in the postseason. Again, we didn't lack talent this year, we lacked experience and cohesion. Another point being you're looking at talent too strictly applying it to college play vs pro play. Those were esh recruits. Under our current system and program we've recruited talent but talent that was developed in college for the pros. The current staff prefers to develop talent most of the time and it shows in our preparedness.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 29, 2016 13:27:28 GMT -5
First, Roy has been hot garbage for a few seasons now. That is FACT. Take the glasses off. Henry is honestly more productive than him despite being on a 10-day contract. Secondly, where in my post did I imply that that 2012 team was as talented as 2007? You're acting like its a zero sum game. They both had talented and one team performed better than the other. If the refs had called Jeff for his travel against Vandy, that was no more than a sweet sixteen team and that 2012 team came within three points of being in the sweet sixteen themselves (NC State had a physically mature frontline that year and good guard play). My point being, if you're trying to look at tournament results as signs of talent you're looking in the wrong place. Just look at the teams themselves and evaluate them objectively. Neither Roy nor Jeff improved their play past their rookie contracts. Greg and Hollis combined almost have as much professional success (we're they on the team at he same time?) and they absolutely Edited the bed in the postseason. Again, we didn't lack talent this year, we lacked experience and cohesion. Another point being you're looking at talent too strictly applying it to college play vs pro play. Those were esh recruits. Under our current system and program we've recruited talent but talent that was developed in college for the pros. The current staff prefers to develop talent most of the time and it shows in our preparedness. Roy has struggled, no doubt, but he hasn't been "hot garbage." It's not a "FACT", you are wrong. If Hibbert really was as bad as you say, he would not be starting on the Lakers and he would not play as many minutes as he does. But really, this is irrelevant because the fact is Roy became a great college player after a horrible freshman season (so the fact that Esherick may have recruited him is really irrelevant; it's not like he was a 4 or 5 star recruit). Jeff's play against Vanderbilt was not a travel. I can see why it might look like he did, but when you really examine the play, he did not travel. "Neither Roy nor Jeff improved their play past their rookie contracts." Really, that's why Roy Hibbert was an All Star in 2012 and 2014? And the NBA All Defensive Second Team in 2014? His decline started sometime in 2014, which really isn't all that long ago. Your facts are just wrong. Greg Monroe has had a lot of success. Hollis? Sure, he's stuck with the 76ers, but he's in his third season playing for an absolutely terrible team that is intentionally trying to lose. The idea that he's had as much success as either Roy or Jeff in the NBA is, at best, premature at the moment.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Mar 29, 2016 16:40:11 GMT -5
My thought on talent regardless of which team's had more through the JTIII era is, who is responsible for assembling the talent? It's not like he's coaching at a high school that doesn't have enough kids to choose from. Half of the job or more is recruiting and building a team that can compete. I get that he's not going to get everyone he wants but ultimately the coach is still responsible to put the pieces together. So whether the talent is there and we aren't winning than that is on the lack of developing, coaching and preparing of players. If the talent isn't there than that's on the recruiting which you can't give a pass for as that's the name of this game.
And don't start with the facilities, academic standards, etc. as we are way ahead of many in that area and can get any kid we want into this school for basketball.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Mar 29, 2016 18:25:00 GMT -5
First, Roy has been hot garbage for a few seasons now. That is FACT. Take the glasses off. Henry is honestly more productive than him despite being on a 10-day contract. Secondly, where in my post did I imply that that 2012 team was as talented as 2007? You're acting like its a zero sum game. They both had talented and one team performed better than the other. If the refs had called Jeff for his travel against Vandy, that was no more than a sweet sixteen team and that 2012 team came within three points of being in the sweet sixteen themselves (NC State had a physically mature frontline that year and good guard play). My point being, if you're trying to look at tournament results as signs of talent you're looking in the wrong place. Just look at the teams themselves and evaluate them objectively. Neither Roy nor Jeff improved their play past their rookie contracts. Greg and Hollis combined almost have as much professional success (we're they on the team at he same time?) and they absolutely Edited the bed in the postseason. Again, we didn't lack talent this year, we lacked experience and cohesion. Another point being you're looking at talent too strictly applying it to college play vs pro play. Those were esh recruits. Under our current system and program we've recruited talent but talent that was developed in college for the pros. The current staff prefers to develop talent most of the time and it shows in our preparedness. Roy has struggled, no doubt, but he hasn't been "hot garbage." It's not a "FACT", you are wrong. If Hibbert really was as bad as you say, he would not be starting on the Lakers and he would not play as many minutes as he does. But really, this is irrelevant because the fact is Roy became a great college player after a horrible freshman season (so the fact that Esherick may have recruited him is really irrelevant; it's not like he was a 4 or 5 star recruit). Jeff's play against Vanderbilt was not a travel. I can see why it might look like he did, but when you really examine the play, he did not travel. "Neither Roy nor Jeff improved their play past their rookie contracts." Really, that's why Roy Hibbert was an All Star in 2012 and 2014? And the NBA All Defensive Second Team in 2014? His decline started sometime in 2014, which really isn't all that long ago. Your facts are just wrong. Greg Monroe has had a lot of success. Hollis? Sure, he's stuck with the 76ers, but he's in his third season playing for an absolutely terrible team that is intentionally trying to lose. The idea that he's had as much success as either Roy or Jeff in the NBA is, at best, premature at the moment. You are misquoting everything by the way. It's not irrelevant that they weren't good their freshman seasons. You're the one arguing that they were different. That's how they were different, they just matured earlier on which was the point I was trying to make. They were always great. Okay, no travel. Right. I said that Roy hasn't improved since the start of his second contract. Exposure and accolades aren't the same thing. He may have won more awards, but his game hasn't developed and further along he just got more popular. And there's no way you can give Roy credit for still starting (on the horrible lakers) and not acknowledge the fact that Hollis is the longest tenured sizer despite all of they turnover they've had. He plays in the NBA, people need to stop acting like it's easy to get a job playing for the Sixers. Hollis had had a quiet but very solid career so far. He's the type of 3 and D that could play on any team right now, especially for his price tag. But reread my statement since you seem confused. I said Greg and Hollis COMBINED, which speaks to your point about Jeff and Roy being head and shoulders better than every other class. They were more college-ready, spent more time in college, and were more prepared. Their talent levels were similar. The difference between the 2007 and teams that came after is that our talent stopped staying 4 years and the ones that did weren't first round talents. Callipari changed the landscape of college bball, I don't know if you noticed or not.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 30, 2016 10:18:00 GMT -5
A lot of well thought out and well reasoned posts. However, I would like to go back to the question I posed. Looking at the guard play we have seen in the NCAA tourney, how much has our guard play (or lack thereof) contributed to our poor season?? A really talented guard can penetrate and then, depending on the situation, either pass off or finish. I am not sure we have a player on our roster who has those skills. LJ, almost never passes the once he penetrates. Fortunately, he is so talented, that he frequently can finish in spite of dribbling into a crowd. I would be interested in your view points on this. Really, Nova is the only team that is in the Final Four because of an advantage in point guard play. Teams led by Tyler Ulis, Melo Tremble, Kris Dunn, and other guards who are better penetrators than those in the Final Four were defended and beaten.
|
|