trillesthoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,854
Member is Online
|
Post by trillesthoya on Aug 10, 2016 13:18:15 GMT -5
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 felt this way too. He's definitely got the speed, his handles are decent, and his passing is alright but I didn't see anything to suggest he was significantly better than Jagan or Tre. That said he has been playing JUCO and hasn't been practicing with a D1 college basketball team so some of his mistakes might be fixable with time and a legit coaching staff. Of our three point guards I honestly think Jagan has the highest ceiling. His length and IQ aren't coachable. Likewise I really hope he isn't just a spot minutes kind of guy this year, that would really hurt his development as a player. I hope coach gives him plenty of burn early especially against the weaker non-con teams.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,774
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 10, 2016 13:19:01 GMT -5
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. Here's the source of the three year average. Better athletes, better coaching, not so better results. 2002 through 2004, last 100 games of Craig Esherick's tenure: 2000-01 (NCAA/16) 5-3 2001-02 (Declined bid) 19-11 2002-03 (NIT) 19-15 2003-04 13-15 Total 56-44
2013 through 2016, most recent 100 games of John Thompson III's tenure: 2012-13 (NCAA/64) 0-1 2013-14 (NIT) 18-15 2014-15 (NCAA/32) 22-11 2015-16 15-18 Total 55-45
|
|
RBHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,134
|
Post by RBHoya on Aug 10, 2016 13:19:06 GMT -5
Re: Campbell, it's true that there's not much precedent for an incumbent starter to fall completely out of the rotation the following year. The only example I can really think of is Nikita, who ended up as a regular starter for us in the latter stages of the disastrous 2008-2009 campaign, but ended up getting bumped from the rotation and eventually transferring midway through the following season. That said, there's also not a lot of precedent for us bringing in two pretty promising prospects at the same position as an incumbent starter either, so perhaps all bets are off. In the long run I just don't see there being regular minutes for all 3 of Mullmore, Mosley and Campbell. And while Tre may have a leg up early on because of his experience, in the end (based on the limited information I have), I think both Mosley and Mullmore are better players with higher ceilings. Time will tell and I think that having some healthy competition at that position will be a good thing, especially after what happened last season. 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. I disagree with this conceptually. I think too many people view "DNPs" as an indication that a player can't bring anything to the table. But really it just means that there are other players on the team who have more prominent strengths or less glaring weaknesses (or some combination of the two). Being good, even being very good, doesn't mean you're going to get minutes--it's an issue of how good you are relative to your teammates. Sure, someone like Reggie Cameron brings some things to the table, maybe even some things that others on the roster don't, but overall the net benefit from having him on the floor doesn't outweigh the benefit of comparable substitutes on the roster. Look around the college basketball landscape, and try find the top coaches who regularly play more than 10 guys in meaningful games. Almost none. The vast majority play 8-9, 10 at most. We have 14 "scholarship-caliber" players on next year's roster. Even if we have a deeper rotation than most, we're still looking at having 4 pretty good players getting DNPs in big games. I know this causes angst for many fans, but really it's a good thing and it's how top programs operate. Just because a player has some ability, you can't expect he'll be shoehorned into the rotation in every conference game. In general you want your best players out there as long as possible except for when their performance is hampered by fatigue or foul trouble, and you want a few quality backups who can give you solid minutes while that resolves. You may also have a few reserves who play specialist roles situationally (but not regularly). But in general, you want your best players playing as much as possible, and it's rare that putting your 11th, 12th, 13th or 14th best player on the floor is going to give you an advantage or one of the guys further up the depth chart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 13:19:24 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. Of the 3 who did you think was the best defender TP?
|
|
tonyparker
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 632
|
Post by tonyparker on Aug 10, 2016 13:27:15 GMT -5
Think Jagan will be the best defender. He is a terrific athlete, has an unbelievable frame for a freshman, and plays hard. Much better defender than Campbell. That said, his handle needs a lot of work to be able to play the point guard position at the Big East level. I can't imagine him as a primary ballhandler for anything more than spot minutes this year. And while the form on his jumper is much better than Mulmore's, his shot needs a lot of work.
I will say this for Mulmore. He has some dog in him that we missed with Trawick leaving. He has the kind of contagious energy and competitive spirit that I personally like to see in a point guard.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 10, 2016 13:54:37 GMT -5
PG: Mulmore 25 min, Mosely 10, Tre 5 SG: Peak 30 min, Johnson 10 SF: Pryor 30 min, Copeland 5 min, White 5 PF: Copeland 15 min, Derrickson 20, Agau 5 C: Govan 20min, Hayes 15 min, Agau 5
So a rotation of 10 people with Tre and White getting spot minutes, but honestly I only have Agau getting the minutes he's getting due to all the praise from JT3. With out that I wouldn't have him in the rotation. I'd probably give those minutes to Derrickson at the 5 and white at the 4. I'd like to get white more minutes but not sure where they come from this year with Pryor derrickson and Copeland taking most of the minutes at the 3 and the 4. I would honestly red shirt at least 1 person out of white, mourning, or Mosely(if Tre proves to be a serviceable back up PG).
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Aug 10, 2016 14:07:26 GMT -5
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. Here's the source of the three year average. Better athletes, better coaching, not so better results. 2002 through 2004, last 100 games of Craig Esherick's tenure: 2000-01 (NCAA/16) 5-3 2001-02 (Declined bid) 19-11 2002-03 (NIT) 19-15 2003-04 13-15 Total 56-44
2013 through 2016, most recent 100 games of John Thompson III's tenure: 2012-13 (NCAA/64) 0-1 2013-14 (NIT) 18-15 2014-15 (NCAA/32) 22-11 2015-16 15-18 Total 55-45
I'm not disputing those records, that they're very disappointing, or your math. But, the records themselves don't tell the full story, as anyone looking at who the wins and losses were against in those years, and by what scores, would have to conclude. In the three most recent III seasons, the Hoyas' Ken Pom average rating is 50. For the relevant CE years? 68. In terms of RPI, for III, the average is 67. For CE, the average is 90. In terms of wins against top 50 teams, III has gone 10-28. CE went 7-28 Again, III's record these past three years ain't good. But it's not nearly as bad as Craig's years.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Aug 10, 2016 14:40:52 GMT -5
Re: Campbell, it's true that there's not much precedent for an incumbent starter to fall completely out of the rotation the following year. The only example I can really think of is Nikita, who ended up as a regular starter for us in the latter stages of the disastrous 2008-2009 campaign, but ended up getting bumped from the rotation and eventually transferring midway through the following season. That said, there's also not a lot of precedent for us bringing in two pretty promising prospects at the same position as an incumbent starter either, so perhaps all bets are off. In the long run I just don't see there being regular minutes for all 3 of Mullmore, Mosley and Campbell. And while Tre may have a leg up early on because of his experience, in the end (based on the limited information I have), I think both Mosley and Mullmore are better players with higher ceilings. Time will tell and I think that having some healthy competition at that position will be a good thing, especially after what happened last season. No - I mean real minutes in games that count. There should be very few DNPs next to anyone's name this year. I disagree with this conceptually. I think too many people view "DNPs" as an indication that a player can't bring anything to the table. But really it just means that there are other players on the team who have more prominent strengths or less glaring weaknesses (or some combination of the two). Being good, even being very good, doesn't mean you're going to get minutes--it's an issue of how good you are relative to your teammates. Sure, someone like Reggie Cameron brings some things to the table, maybe even some things that others on the roster don't, but overall the net benefit from having him on the floor doesn't outweigh the benefit of comparable substitutes on the roster. Look around the college basketball landscape, and try find the top coaches who regularly play more than 10 guys in meaningful games. Almost none. The vast majority play 8-9, 10 at most. We have 14 "scholarship-caliber" players on next year's roster. Even if we have a deeper rotation than most, we're still looking at having 4 pretty good players getting DNPs in big games. I know this causes angst for many fans, but really it's a good thing and it's how top programs operate. Just because a player has some ability, you can't expect he'll be shoehorned into the rotation in every conference game. In general you want your best players out there as long as possible except for when their performance is hampered by fatigue or foul trouble, and you want a few quality backups who can give you solid minutes while that resolves. You may also have a few reserves who play specialist roles situationally (but not regularly). But in general, you want your best players playing as much as possible, and it's rare that putting your 11th, 12th, 13th or 14th best player on the floor is going to give you an advantage or one of the guys further up the depth chart. Agree to disagree. I really believe in numerous, almost frantic substitutions, with frequency decreasing slightly over the game. My main point is that there WILL be games in which we need to rely on the Campbells and Camerons, etc. Allowing those guys to get their proverbial feet wet in most, if not all games, is a huge positive to me. From the player's perspective, there is a huge difference between playing only a couple of minutes and not getting off the bench. In the games when we need the lesser-used players, it would be a huge benefit for those guys to have that extra playing time, and for them to be used to playing important, if limited, minutes. I really hope that the Hoyas consistently use more than ten players a game, at least for a few minutes.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,780
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 10, 2016 16:46:31 GMT -5
My point of view, having seen absolutely none of Kenner but reading everything.
* Peak and Pryor should be the only "guaranteed" starters. * I'd likely start Mulmore at point, just based on experience and let Jagan grow as a backup without pressure. * At center, I find it hard to put Hayes over Govan when we have a real center on the court. We simply will never have a strong defense with Hayes manning the center unless his physical skills have changed drastically, IMO. * I know everyone has put in Copeland, but I don't really know that he's a better player than Derrickson right now. I don't know that he's not, but while we can all see the potential, I'm kind of amazed at the lack of frustration with Copeland's game or lack thereof. He's too talented to take half the plays off.
Based on all that, I'd be super tempted to do:
Mulmore Peak Pryor Derrickson Govan
But a Derrickson/Govan backline is fairly terrifying defensively if they haven't improved. I think Govan can ... not sure about Derrickson's ultimate defensive upside. Given that, I think I will ultimately cave and go with Copeland there for theoretical better rebounding and defensive upside, even if it never materializes.
|
|
trillesthoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,854
Member is Online
|
Post by trillesthoya on Aug 10, 2016 16:53:13 GMT -5
My point of view, having seen absolutely none of Kenner but reading everything. * Peak and Pryor should be the only "guaranteed" starters. * I'd likely start Mulmore at point, just based on experience and let Jagan grow as a backup without pressure. * At center, I find it hard to put Hayes over Govan when we have a real center on the court. We simply will never have a strong defense with Hayes manning the center unless his physical skills have changed drastically, IMO. * I know everyone has put in Copeland, but I don't really know that he's a better player than Derrickson right now. I don't know that he's not, but while we can all see the potential, I'm kind of amazed at the lack of frustration with Copeland's game or lack thereof. He's too talented to take half the plays off. Based on all that, I'd be super tempted to do: Mulmore Peak Pryor Derrickson Govan But a Derrickson/Govan backline is fairly terrifying defensively if they haven't improved. I think Govan can ... not sure about Derrickson's ultimate defensive upside. Given that, I think I will ultimately cave and go with Copeland there for theoretical better rebounding and defensive upside, even if it never materializes. Our team's performance this year will be linked heavily to how well Isaac performs. We can count on Peak and Pryor to produce, and in theory if Copeland continues to struggle we should be okay with giving the lion-share of minutes to Derrickson. But if Copeland is hot like he was the beginning of last year and the end of his Freshman year there's no ceiling for this team. He singlehandedly gave us a fighting chance against many talented teams the past couple years and with the new guards coming Isaac will be able to defend players he's more suited for and won't be expected to do too much ball handling/distributing. I've said this before and I'll say it again: this team is still Isaac and LJ's. Both players NEED to step up for us to do well. Hopefully with the new guys coming in both players will be in better positions to where they can finally play to their strong suits.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 10, 2016 17:12:16 GMT -5
I think Isaac will have a really good junior campaign by playing to his strengths that the improved guard play will highlight.
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,329
|
Post by vv83 on Aug 10, 2016 17:25:44 GMT -5
My point of view, having seen absolutely none of Kenner but reading everything. * Peak and Pryor should be the only "guaranteed" starters. * I'd likely start Mulmore at point, just based on experience and let Jagan grow as a backup without pressure. * At center, I find it hard to put Hayes over Govan when we have a real center on the court. We simply will never have a strong defense with Hayes manning the center unless his physical skills have changed drastically, IMO. * I know everyone has put in Copeland, but I don't really know that he's a better player than Derrickson right now. I don't know that he's not, but while we can all see the potential, I'm kind of amazed at the lack of frustration with Copeland's game or lack thereof. He's too talented to take half the plays off. Based on all that, I'd be super tempted to do: Mulmore Peak Pryor Derrickson Govan But a Derrickson/Govan backline is fairly terrifying defensively if they haven't improved. I think Govan can ... not sure about Derrickson's ultimate defensive upside. Given that, I think I will ultimately cave and go with Copeland there for theoretical better rebounding and defensive upside, even if it never materializes. Derrickson was clearly better than Copeland in Kenner play this summer. Copeland was good when he could get out and run, but not so much in the halfcourt. And his defense was still not good - he just does not have a natural sense for the timing/spacing/rotations of team defense, and loses his man off the ball too often. Derrickson was good in pretty much every way. His positional defense is good - he just can't elevate enough to block many shots at his height. Derrickson was also a very strong defensive rebounder, pulling in many defensive boards in heavy traffic. as he has lost more weight, Derrickson's feet have gotten quicker. He defended the perimeter competently, and was very physical defending the post. Copeland still might start because of the way the different talents on the team end up fitting together. But Derrickson clearly outplayed Copeland this summer.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 10, 2016 19:59:46 GMT -5
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. Here's the source of the three year average. Better athletes, better coaching, not so better results. 2002 through 2004, last 100 games of Craig Esherick's tenure: 2000-01 (NCAA/16) 5-3 2001-02 (Declined bid) 19-11 2002-03 (NIT) 19-15 2003-04 13-15 Total 56-44
2013 through 2016, most recent 100 games of John Thompson III's tenure: 2012-13 (NCAA/64) 0-1 2013-14 (NIT) 18-15 2014-15 (NCAA/32) 22-11 2015-16 15-18 Total 55-45
aleutianhoya pretty much responded as I would to this. The records are highly misleading. Esherick basically played nobody decent in the OOC - several seasons he played one or no tournament teams in the OOC. Contrast that to a season like this past one where played several tough teams. Also, I think there's a big difference between Sweet 16, NIT (declined), NIT, and no bid to NCAA (2 seed), NIT, NCAA (4 seed), no bid. When you look beyond win/loss you also see the differences. For example, this year's team was 60 on Ken Pom, 62 on offense, 85 on defense. In contrast, in 2004, the team was 139 overall, our offense was 261 and defense was 30. The 2004 team was 2 games below .500, even though Esherick scheduled horrible OOC opponents (ranked 301, 218, 241, 260, 295, 125, 246, 312, 316, 1, 86). Contrast that to last year, where we played in the OOC: 234, 25, 31, 20, 344, 316, 24, 271, 73, 88, 122, 187, and 26). So basically, if the 2016 team played the 2004-level opponents, it's very likely we would have been above .500 last season.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,780
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 10, 2016 21:16:36 GMT -5
Here's the source of the three year average. Better athletes, better coaching, not so better results. 2002 through 2004, last 100 games of Craig Esherick's tenure: 2000-01 (NCAA/16) 5-3 2001-02 (Declined bid) 19-11 2002-03 (NIT) 19-15 2003-04 13-15 Total 56-44
2013 through 2016, most recent 100 games of John Thompson III's tenure: 2012-13 (NCAA/64) 0-1 2013-14 (NIT) 18-15 2014-15 (NCAA/32) 22-11 2015-16 15-18 Total 55-45
aleutianhoya pretty much responded as I would to this. The records are highly misleading. Esherick basically played nobody decent in the OOC - several seasons he played one or no tournament teams in the OOC. Contrast that to a season like this past one where played several tough teams. Also, I think there's a big difference between Sweet 16, NIT (declined), NIT, and no bid to NCAA (2 seed), NIT, NCAA (4 seed), no bid. When you look beyond win/loss you also see the differences. For example, this year's team was 60 on Ken Pom, 62 on offense, 85 on defense. In contrast, in 2004, the team was 139 overall, our offense was 261 and defense was 30. The 2004 team was 2 games below .500, even though Esherick scheduled horrible OOC opponents (ranked 301, 218, 241, 260, 295, 125, 246, 312, 316, 1, 86). Contrast that to last year, where we played in the OOC: 234, 25, 31, 20, 344, 316, 24, 271, 73, 88, 122, 187, and 26). So basically, if the 2016 team played the 2004-level opponents, it's very likely we would have been above .500 last season. You're 100% right. Another easy way to compare -- Esherick's BE record in those 3 seasons: 19-31. Thompson's: 27-27. The latter is not great, but it is at least .500. The bigger issue, to bring back a doseofreality phrase from the old days, was process. The 2004 team was awful, having lost a college great in Mike Sweetney and basically having no real talent whatsoever. While Esherick did have talent eventually coming, the 2004 showed what had been apparent the years before -- Esherick really had no idea how to run an effective offense. Esherick's defenses were good if never great, but his complete lack of a functional offense took an amazing talent in Sweetney and put him in a situation where Mike had to do everything. And as a post player, it was hard to get Mike the ball or the foul call down the stretch. Esherick was hopeless to figure out how to accomplish that. That's why we needed a new coach. That's a big part of why teams ranked 30th and 35th in Pomeroy still couldn't win a lot of games, even with joke-level non-conference games. Those teams wildly underperformed their pythagorean projections for a reason. Regardless, I have no idea why Esherick is even being discussed. His performance should be irrelevant to any future coaching decision.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,780
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 10, 2016 21:24:44 GMT -5
My point of view, having seen absolutely none of Kenner but reading everything. * Peak and Pryor should be the only "guaranteed" starters. * I'd likely start Mulmore at point, just based on experience and let Jagan grow as a backup without pressure. * At center, I find it hard to put Hayes over Govan when we have a real center on the court. We simply will never have a strong defense with Hayes manning the center unless his physical skills have changed drastically, IMO. * I know everyone has put in Copeland, but I don't really know that he's a better player than Derrickson right now. I don't know that he's not, but while we can all see the potential, I'm kind of amazed at the lack of frustration with Copeland's game or lack thereof. He's too talented to take half the plays off. Based on all that, I'd be super tempted to do: Mulmore Peak Pryor Derrickson Govan But a Derrickson/Govan backline is fairly terrifying defensively if they haven't improved. I think Govan can ... not sure about Derrickson's ultimate defensive upside. Given that, I think I will ultimately cave and go with Copeland there for theoretical better rebounding and defensive upside, even if it never materializes. Derrickson was clearly better than Copeland in Kenner play this summer. Copeland was good when he could get out and run, but not so much in the halfcourt. And his defense was still not good - he just does not have a natural sense for the timing/spacing/rotations of team defense, and loses his man off the ball too often. Derrickson was good in pretty much every way. His positional defense is good - he just can't elevate enough to block many shots at his height. Derrickson was also a very strong defensive rebounder, pulling in many defensive boards in heavy traffic. as he has lost more weight, Derrickson's feet have gotten quicker. He defended the perimeter competently, and was very physical defending the post. Copeland still might start because of the way the different talents on the team end up fitting together. But Derrickson clearly outplayed Copeland this summer. I don't disagree with anything you've said, and I think that's entirely why I am still apprehensive about this year. Derrickson is limited from a physical standpoint and Copeland, well: "he just does not have a natural sense for the timing/spacing/rotations of team defense, and loses his man off the ball too often." And he was good when he could get out and run? So is like every basketball player not named Bradley Hayes. I would feel entirely differently if we had a strong defensive center. But unless Govan makes a leap -- and it's possible, as he's young and talented -- our PF needs to be more than a guy who gets occasionally streaky hot as a jump shooter. I would trade Copeland for a Junkyard Dog type in a freaking heartbeat. I still firmly believe that this team needs to find a defensive identity as a team and let the scoring come. I've given up on them developing into a troublesome team of five shooters who play strong team ball -- we don't seem to have the bb iq or the passing skills or the willingness to play an offense for that. Goodbye dreams of mini-Warriors. So if we're going to toss our offense to Peak and Pryor with Cope, Govan and Derrickson hitting outside shots ... we're going to need to defend to be any good. That'll lead to easy baskets on the break and maybe some level of cohesion which was missing for most of last year.
|
|
trillesthoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,854
Member is Online
|
Post by trillesthoya on Aug 10, 2016 21:41:41 GMT -5
One thing to note, the center position this upcoming year in the big east overall is relatively weak. Outside of our two centers the only other decent centers will be Omari Spellman a freshman who isn't even eligible yet and Luke Fischer at Marquette. Outside of those two, who else will give us troubl?. Angel Delgado is a 6-9 forward that Marcus should be able to guard. Honestly I'm not worried about our big man defense TOO much. It's definitely one our biggest weaknesses but if our guards can stay in front of opposing guards and do better in the PnR it won't be a huge issue.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,780
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 10, 2016 22:04:25 GMT -5
One thing to note, the center position this upcoming year in the big east overall is relatively weak. Outside of our two centers the only other decent centers will be Omari Spellman a freshman who isn't even eligible yet and Luke Fischer at Marquette. Outside of those two, who else will give us troubl?. Angel Delgado is a 6-9 forward that Marcus should be able to guard. Honestly I'm not worried about our big man defense TOO much. It's definitely one our biggest weaknesses but if our guards can stay in front of opposing guards and do better in the PnR it won't be a huge issue. It's not defending centers I'm concerned about. It's rim defense and help D on drives.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,350
|
Post by prhoya on Aug 11, 2016 6:54:43 GMT -5
One thing to note, the center position this upcoming year in the big east overall is relatively weak. Outside of our two centers the only other decent centers will be Omari Spellman a freshman who isn't even eligible yet and Luke Fischer at Marquette. Outside of those two, who else will give us troubl?. Angel Delgado is a 6-9 forward that Marcus should be able to guard. Honestly I'm not worried about our big man defense TOO much. I said something similar last year.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,774
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 11, 2016 9:08:20 GMT -5
You're 100% right. Another easy way to compare -- Esherick's BE record in those 3 seasons: 19-31. Thompson's: 27-27. The latter is not great, but it is at least .500. Well, that's faint praise. Coaches are, as a a group, notoriously slow to recognize the need to change. Somewhere, Jerry Wainwright is still thinking if he just had more time at DePaul, they'd be turned around by now. Sadly, Dave Leitao is probably saying the same thing. The issue is not comparing JTIII to Esherick--it's not a valid comparison. What is a valid comparison is that, much like 2004, the records are at issue--the rest of the Big East now considers Georgetown a .500 team and no amount of vague "order will be restored" comments will change that. Consistent play will change that. Peception is not reality, but a lot of other Big East fans seem to think so. " While they may have had disappointing results, there have no doubt been a fair share of talented players to suit up for John Thompson III since the 2010-11 season..." www.bigeastcoastbias.com/2016/8/10/12427594/big-east-coast-bias-all-half-decade-teams-georgetown-hoyas
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 11, 2016 9:22:58 GMT -5
What is a valid comparison is that, much like 2004, the records are at issue--the rest of the Big East now considers Georgetown a .500 team and no amount of vague "order will be restored" comments will change that. Peception is not reality, but a lot of other Big East fans seem to think so. " While they may have had disappointing results, there have no doubt been a fair share of talented players to suit up for John Thompson III since the 2010-11 season..." www.bigeastcoastbias.com/2016/8/10/12427594/big-east-coast-bias-all-half-decade-teams-georgetown-hoyasIf you want to focus on records, the 2004 team was 4-12 in the Big East. We were 7-11 last year. The 2004 team was really, really, really, really, bad. The 2016 team wasn't good, but it also wasn't nearly at the 2004 level. Perceptions change fast when you win. Let's just win this year, and all this will take care of itself.
|
|