alleninxis
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,216
|
Post by alleninxis on Aug 9, 2016 11:54:51 GMT -5
I didn't see much of anything. Take away his hot night at Xavier and he was 15-67 from 3 (22%), his defense was atrocious, his handle is too lose to get into the paint and he doesn't make plays for others. I don't like him off the ball if it means he's playing in a small back court with Mulmore or Mosely, either. The level Mulmore or Mosely would have to play at to compare/better to last year's version of Tre is a very low expectation. He was one of the worst players in the entire Big East to get rotation minutes. That said, he CAN get better and I'd expect him to bounce back (at least shooting the ball) - but last year the alternative was Riyan Williams, this year it's high major caliber talent even if inexperienced. Tre either gets better or gets left behind IMO.
|
|
bkhoya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 117
|
Post by bkhoya on Aug 9, 2016 12:13:58 GMT -5
Tre is a borderline high major player. He's not a PG and he's too small and not a consistent enough shooter or scorer to be a shooting guard. So what's the rationale for stating he has to play this year aside for the fact that he started on a team that finished 8th in the Big East (out of 10) and had a losing record of 15-18 with no postseason basketball at all?
|
|
|
Post by trillesthoya on Aug 9, 2016 12:32:28 GMT -5
I don't think it's useful to get back into the Tre Campbell debate, this has been discussed and debated unnecessarily.
All I will say is players go through sophomore slumps, especially when they're forced to a play a position that isn't their natural role. I have no doubt that Tre will be given a chance at the beginning of the year to bounce back, if he doesn't then maybe later in the season he'll transition to being only a spot minutes kind of guy. But just a reminder that it was only a year ago that people were thinking that he would turn out even better than Markel. I understand we've had a full year since then to get a better sample of what he can do, but the idea that he is now completely out of the rotation to me is unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Aug 9, 2016 12:41:19 GMT -5
Campbell, Johnson, Cameron, Agua, and Mourning.
(RUNS FOR COVER)
In all seriousness, I hope that all five of those guys see some consistent time this year- even if only for a few minutes a game at times. I believe that all of them can help the team.
|
|
zxhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,716
|
Post by zxhoya on Aug 9, 2016 14:57:04 GMT -5
Campbell, Johnson, Cameron, Agua, and Mourning. (RUNS FOR COVER) In all seriousness, I hope that all five of those guys see some consistent time this year- even if only for a few minutes a game at times. I believe that all of them can help the team. They will, mop up duty in blowout wins.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Aug 9, 2016 15:57:01 GMT -5
To me, our version of "small ball" is playing a G/F at the 3 rather then a pure SF or SF/PF. We do have high level length but that is due more to our size at the 2 and 3 ontop of our size at the 4 and 5. Again, to me, a big lineup would be something like Mosely, Peak, Copeland, Derrickson, Govan...does that really look different from what many think will be the starting lineup? Additionally, a "small" lineup would still have 6'10" Copeland, 6'9" White, or 6'8" Cameron at the 4 and 6'9", 6'9"+ Agau, 6'10" Govan, or 7' Hayes at the 5. Personally, I'd rather go "small" just as often as we go "big" because having both Peak and Pryor on the court at the same time will be dynamic. Add in having Derrickson and Copeland down low with those two and that group of 4 could be great, just need a 5th that won't clog things up. Rebounding from the 4/5 would be a concern but the hope is that 1-3 would be a positive over their opponent to offset. Fortunately, both of our SGs (and PGs) are all drive to the hoop guys more so then 3-pt specialists, but I agree that we don't want them falling in love with the 3. If Hayes and Govan were Mourning and Mutumbo this would be a different discussion but neither are even close to being as dynamic on the defensive end. Huh you're small line up is not a small line up. When people are talking about the small line up they're talking about derrickson at the 5. So our tallest player would be 6'8". Oops, I had forgotten Derrickson at the end of my first paragraph, put his height in but no name. You're still talking about Copeland at the 4, which gives your front court some length. Do some people actually want a true small lineup of Mulmore, Mosely, Peak, Pryor, Derrickson?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 17:48:34 GMT -5
Familiarity with the system and a tough early season slate means Tre prob sees minutes early.. Wouldn't be surprised if that decreases as the season goes on...
Side note but heard the leg injury that kept him out of a few games last year bothered him the entire season fwiw... hopefully that's the reason he shot the ball so poorly would help us and him a lot if he got back to his Freshman year percentages...
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 9, 2016 22:28:42 GMT -5
Familiarity with the system and a tough early season slate means Tre prob sees minutes early.. Wouldn't be surprised if that decreases as the season goes on... Side note but heard the leg injury that kept him out of a few games last year bothered him the entire season fwiw... hopefully that's the reason he shot the ball so poorly would help us and him a lot if he got back to his Freshman year percentages... Yes, and Tre had a better freshman season than he's given credit for. My feeling is Tre Campbell will get a chance to show something and if he doesn't, his minutes will decrease. Last year, he played a lot mostly because there was nobody else to play. This year, there are options, so I think the leash will be shorter on him. I really think Cameron should be in the same position. It's hard for me to see him getting minutes, but I think JT3 will at least give him a shot. My feeling is that he will (or should) get spot minutes at best without unexpected improvement.
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,758
|
Post by blueandgray on Aug 10, 2016 1:01:25 GMT -5
I have a feeling that we are going to be employing a press far more than we have in years past. We saw more of it last year, but with this team, expect to see a lot of it. While Tre is weak on man defense, he could play an important on the press.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by calhoya on Aug 10, 2016 7:32:28 GMT -5
I missed all of Kenner for the second time in 15 years and am forced to rely upon reports, rumors and probably unrealistic expectations. I just hope that the talk about a faster offense capitalizing on the athleticism of this team and more pressure on defense will actually prove correct. Still as I look at the roster there are some obvious questions or obstacles to any major transformation.
Assuming that Akoy is still not fully recovered (and who knows what he brings at this point), are any of the posts showing improved rebounding and the ability to play at a faster pace for sustained periods? Although reports out of Kenner indicate some of the guards have become solid rebounders there needs to be serious improvement across the front line. Who is taking that next step?
Pryor has become very popular, very fast, but reading the statistics this summer show him to be a high volume shooter, with some tendencies to be streaky. After watching DSR defer too often this may prove a welcome change, but there remains only one ball and a number of players on this team who can shoot. For those who watched Kenner, does Pryor shoot because that is what the flow of the game dictates, does he dominate the ball too much or is it just another year of Kenner ball with a heavy dose of individual play? I have no idea but would like some opinion from anyone who actually has seen him play.
How did our posts look in terms of quickness and lateral mobility? Realizing that defense and Kenner seldom go in the same sentence, it still is important to have posts who can rotate on offense and defense , despite improved defense on the perimeter.
Finally, points scored in Kenner aside, how does the perimeter shooting look this season? From the stats I saw, Peak, MD and perhaps Pryor have 3 pt. range and accuracy, but most others seem not to have any consistency on that shot. This was a critical failing last year in the offense as the team went through many stretches of simply launching futile shots. Again, Kenner is not an accurate measuring stick, but it is the only sample available now.
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,329
|
Post by vv83 on Aug 10, 2016 7:59:00 GMT -5
-Hayes and Govan still struggled defensively. Hayes is just slow, not much he can do about that. Hayes is, however, a solid defensive rebounder. He usually defends the PnR by dropping back into the lane, rather than hedging or switching on the perimeter - so he is in solid defensive rebounding position. But he struggles to deal with guards who get free into the lane. They can too easily score over/around him, or draw a foul. Govan can play decent defense when he is not tired. But when he is tired, his defense is very sloppy. If we can limit Jesse to 20 minutes or so a game, he has a chance to be an average defender. Maybe with time he can be even better than that, as he is long and at least somewhat athletic.
-I have no idea how pryor played at Robert Morris. He did have a couple of other good scorers on that team - they had three guys who averaged 15+ ppg last year, I believe. But in Kenner - he was always hunting his shot. He took a lot of contested jumpers - many of which he made, but many of which he missed. He is a solid passer - he does look for open teammates. But his natural inclination is to either attack the basket or pull up for a jumper. He will likely share the ball more with more talent around him, as he did at Robert Morris. But I would be surprised if Pryor does not take the most shots on the team, perhaps by a significant margin.
-The three point shooting was fine. The only guys who could see significant playing time who shot poorly wereCopeland and Campbell. And Copeland was fine on "catch and shoot" 3s. His problem is pulling up off the dribble for 3s. He settled for this kind of shot far too often this summer. With the offensive talent we have, he should not be taking pull up contested 3's except for late in the shot clock. Campbell just takes too many tough 3s - similar to copeland, a lot of pull up 3s that he should pass up in order to lead the team in looking for a better shot.
Everyone else shot well from 3: Mulmore, Derrickson, Pryor, Peak primarily. These are the 4 guys who should be taking the majority of our 3s this year. Govan and Kaleb were also fine, on less volume. Mosely was OK as well, on a bit more volume. And Mosely's shot is sound, it seems like he will improve over time. But he is OK now, he'll his his share of open 3s -and he is selective, he only takes 3s when he is open. Mulmore's release is a bit low and slow, but he hit a good percentage. He only takes 3s when he is wide open, although he does sometimes fire up a "heat check" 3 out of the rhythm of the offense when he is hitting his shots.
I will compile the stats from the games I saw this summer at some point in the next few weeks, to put some harder data to these general impressions.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Aug 10, 2016 8:00:14 GMT -5
Campbell, Johnson, Cameron, Agua, and Mourning. (RUNS FOR COVER) In all seriousness, I hope that all five of those guys see some consistent time this year- even if only for a few minutes a game at times. I believe that all of them can help the team. They will, mop up duty in blowout wins. No - I mean real minutes in games that count. There should be very few DNPs next to anyone's name this year.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by calhoya on Aug 10, 2016 8:39:14 GMT -5
-Hayes and Govan still struggled defensively. Hayes is just slow, not much he can do about that. Hayes is, however, a solid defensive rebounder. He usually defends the PnR by dropping back into the lane, rather than hedging or switching on the perimeter - so he is in solid defensive rebounding position. But he struggles to deal with guards who get free into the lane. They can too easily score over/around him, or draw a foul. Govan can play decent defense when he is not tired. But when he is tired, his defense is very sloppy. If we can limit Jesse to 20 minutes or so a game, he has a chance to be an average defender. Maybe with time he can be even better than that, as he is long and at least somewhat athletic. -I have no idea how pryor played at Robert Morris. He did have a couple of other good scorers on that team - they had three guys who averaged 15+ ppg last year, I believe. But in Kenner - he was always hunting his shot. He took a lot of contested jumpers - many of which he made, but many of which he missed. He is a solid passer - he does look for open teammates. But his natural inclination is to either attack the basket or pull up for a jumper. He will likely share the ball more with more talent around him, as he did at Robert Morris. But I would be surprised if Pryor does not take the most shots on the team, perhaps by a significant margin. -The three point shooting was fine. The only guys who could see significant playing time who shot poorly wereCopeland and Campbell. And Copeland was fine on "catch and shoot" 3s. His problem is pulling up off the dribble for 3s. He settled for this kind of shot far too often this summer. With the offensive talent we have, he should not be taking pull up contested 3's except for late in the shot clock. Campbell just takes too many tough 3s - similar to copeland, a lot of pull up 3s that he should pass up in order to lead the team in looking for a better shot. Everyone else shot well from 3: Mulmore, Derrickson, Pryor, Peak primarily. These are the 4 guys who should be taking the majority of our 3s this year. Govan and Kaleb were also fine, on less volume. Mosely was OK as well, on a bit more volume. And Mosely's shot is sound, it seems like he will improve over time. But he is OK now, he'll his his share of open 3s -and he is selective, he only takes 3s when he is open. Mulmore's release is a bit low and slow, but he hit a good percentage. He only takes 3s when he is wide open, although he does sometimes fire up a "heat check" 3 out of the rhythm of the offense when he is hitting his shots. I will compile the stats from the games I saw this summer at some point in the next few weeks, to put some harder data to these general impressions. Thanks for the quick response. Much appreciated.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,771
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 10, 2016 9:40:27 GMT -5
Distance and work commitments make Kenner League attendance a non-starter for me, but I appreciate the discussion.
If Georgetown basketball was a stock, it would be "underweight"--the three year average is at or about where this program was under from 2002-04 and while many hope/expect JT III is going to take some sort of sharp turn in his coaching approach, there's nothing that confirms this. The basketball experts are often proven wrong, but the early talk on the impact of a fifth year senior from the NEC (Pryor) and a JC player (Mulmore) is not moving Georgetown into the top three in the conference.
The real driver whether 2016-17 is a move to the top of the conference and a second week in the tournament vs. another March of discontent is the development up front. Guard play is great, but if Copeland doesn't excel, if Derrickson's second year is more like Josh Smith than Mike Sweetney, or if the Govan-Agau-Hayes rotation becomes another round of Hopkins-Ayegba-Lubick, the guards are not going to be effective. Georgetown was 7th of 10 Big East teams in offensive rebounding and only 5th in defensive rebounds. That's literally points left on the table every game.
Georgetown absolutely needs a big year from Copeland and Derrickson.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Aug 10, 2016 10:52:42 GMT -5
I agree, DFW- we need forwards who are willing to mix it up and provide some rebounding of the Wes Unseld and Charles Oakley variety- at least in process, if not results.
I actually believe that the Hayes-Govan-Agau center position will be much stronger this year than last, but we shall see.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 10, 2016 12:29:01 GMT -5
Distance and work commitments make Kenner League attendance a non-starter for me, but I appreciate the discussion. If Georgetown basketball was a stock, it would be "underweight"--the three year average is at or about where this program was under from 2002-04 and while many hope/expect JT III is going to take some sort of sharp turn in his coaching approach, there's nothing that confirms this. The basketball experts are often proven wrong, but the early talk on the impact of a fifth year senior from the NEC (Pryor) and a JC player (Mulmore) is not moving Georgetown into the top three in the conference. The real driver whether 2016-17 is a move to the top of the conference and a second week in the tournament vs. another March of discontent is the development up front. Guard play is great, but if Copeland doesn't excel, if Derrickson's second year is more like Josh Smith than Mike Sweetney, or if the Govan-Agau-Hayes rotation becomes another round of Hopkins-Ayegba-Lubick, the guards are not going to be effective. Georgetown was 7th of 10 Big East teams in offensive rebounding and only 5th in defensive rebounds. That's literally points left on the table every game. Georgetown absolutely needs a big year from Copeland and Derrickson. While I think the tone of your post is pessimistic (I wouldn't say we are in the 2002-2004 realm when it comes to where the program is at, but I'll leave that debate aside), it raises some good points. I do think we need the sophomore class that largely failed us last year (aside from Peak) to step it up. Guys like Peak and Copeland still hold the keys to this team, along with Derrickson and Govan. All four of those guys have a lot of upside. As for Pryor and Mulmore, I would not diminish them because they were NEC or JUCO players, but it's a good reminder that we need to be realistic. Pryor played on a poor Robert Morris team last year, he used 29.4% of possessions (in contrast, DSR last year was at 23.9) and his efficiency was 100.9 (i.e., he was a volume shooter, and not terribly efficient). That said, he was on a team that wasn't nearly as good as Georgetown was, even last year. There's no way that Pryor's usage should be 29.4 this year; lower usage may help to raise his efficiency. In fact, Pryor's usage was lower in 2014 (24.1), and he was a lot more efficient (118.0). He also shot threes poorly last year, if he reverted to his junior year form, he would raise his efficiency significantly, as well. We really want the junior year Pryor, not the senior version. Pryor is going to get playing time. If Tre Campbell is not improved, Pryor should be better than him and he will get playing time. I think he will range anywhere from being very solid to very good. As for Mulmore, it's unclear since he's never played in Division I, but he'll certainly get a shot. Your point on rebounding is fair - it's important, but not overall as important as fouling less, giving opponents less free throws, and defending better.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by calhoya on Aug 10, 2016 12:35:28 GMT -5
Distance and work commitments make Kenner League attendance a non-starter for me, but I appreciate the discussion. If Georgetown basketball was a stock, it would be "underweight"--the three year average is at or about where this program was under from 2002-04 and while many hope/expect JT III is going to take some sort of sharp turn in his coaching approach, there's nothing that confirms this. The basketball experts are often proven wrong, but the early talk on the impact of a fifth year senior from the NEC (Pryor) and a JC player (Mulmore) is not moving Georgetown into the top three in the conference. The real driver whether 2016-17 is a move to the top of the conference and a second week in the tournament vs. another March of discontent is the development up front. Guard play is great, but if Copeland doesn't excel, if Derrickson's second year is more like Josh Smith than Mike Sweetney, or if the Govan-Agau-Hayes rotation becomes another round of Hopkins-Ayegba-Lubick, the guards are not going to be effective. Georgetown was 7th of 10 Big East teams in offensive rebounding and only 5th in defensive rebounds. That's literally points left on the table every game. Georgetown absolutely needs a big year from Copeland and Derrickson. While I think the tone of your post is pessimistic (I wouldn't say we are in the 2002-2004 realm when it comes to where the program is at, but I'll leave that debate aside), it raises some good points. I do think we need the sophomore class that largely failed us last year (aside from Peak) to step it up. Guys like Peak and Copeland still hold the keys to this team, along with Derrickson and Govan. All four of those guys have a lot of upside. As for Pryor and Mulmore, I would not diminish them because they were NEC or JUCO players. But, I also think it's important to be realistic. Pryor seems like he will be a solid to very good guard for us. As for Mulmore, it's unclear, but he'll certainly get a shot. Your point on rebounding is fair - it's important, but not overall as important as fouling less, giving opponents less free throws, and defending better. All these points are solid. However, despite considerable attention and discussion by fans of the failures on the offense and defense last year, I believe that the team was doomed by its poor rebounding and ball security. More specifically, the carelessness with the ball by the entire team was incredible and not a function of skill or a particular offense, but rather just a lack of focus and composure. This is clearly correctable.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 10, 2016 12:45:16 GMT -5
All these points are solid. However, despite considerable attention and discussion by fans of the failures on the offense and defense last year, I believe that the team was doomed by its poor rebounding and ball security. More specifically, the carelessness with the ball by the entire team was incredible and not a function of skill or a particular offense, but rather just a lack of focus and composure. This is clearly correctable. I agree. Ball security and turnovers were a large problem (and it's been a problem in the past, but masked because other aspects of the team were better). Really, playing smarter takes care of many of the problems we had last year. Stupid ticky-tack type fouls away from the ball, moving screens, turning the ball over because you're trying to make a too-difficult pass - these are all things that are basically low IQ actions that should be avoided with smarter play. Even on defense - there were possessions last year that were befuddling. In one particular instance, my friend and I paused the DVR to see what was going on. It seemed like half the team was playing man to man, and 2-3 playing zone. The result was an easy basket for the other team. Things like this need to be fixed with smarter play. And, the responsibility for that does fall to a significant degree on the coaching staff, too, though it's up to the players to execute.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 10, 2016 13:03:15 GMT -5
This may sound ridiculous, but if I were JT3, I would come up with a snappy new name for our offense, shout to anybody that will listen that we are changing, and implement whatever offense he wants. The truth is:
1. The Princeton offense has a negative connotation because it's associated with slow, unathletic teams.
2. Regardless of whether that's true, it hurts us in recruiting and/or perceptions.
3. Georgetown has not run anything remotely resembling a true Princeton offense for several years, even if it has incorporated some principles.
4. Many of the "Princeton principles" we do use are basic principles in any motion offense; these principles are used by other college teams and NBA teams.
5. JT3 has a lot of options with the offense this year. Create a new name for it, and make a PR push to change the false perception that we are a Princeton offense. "Princetown" doesn't do it - first of all, that didn't catch on, second of all, it still associates with Princeton primarily, and that's a negative.
Maybe the Cut and Attack Offense? I don't know - I am sure others can come up with something much better than that, but perception is important, and we need to address it.
|
|
tonyparker
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 632
|
Post by tonyparker on Aug 10, 2016 13:06:17 GMT -5
I caught several Kenner games this summer. Pryor is the real deal. Reminds me of young Cuttino Mobley. Would be surprised if he isn't First Team All Big East.
I am less enthusiastic about Mulmore. His jumper is broken and a lot of his finishes were of the "Chris Wright" variety (i.e., work better in Kenner than in real games). Turnover prone. I don't see a lot of daylight between Mulmore, Tre, and Jagan.
I also don't see us playing much faster than in years past because I think our point guard play is going to be mediocre, and I think we are going to be giving a lot of minutes to plodding, relatively unathletic bigs (Hayes, Derrickson, Govan, maybe Agau and White).
For all this talk about 10 man lineups, I'd be surprised and frankly upset if Pryor and Peak didn't play 35 minutes a game. I see a starting lineup of Mulmore, Peak, Pryor, Derrickson and Hayes. Copeland and Govan getting the bulk of the back-up minutes at the four and five. I am hoping that Mulmore does enough to take hold of the starting point guard role, leaving spot minutes for Tre and/or Jagan.
|
|