|
Post by trillesthoya on Aug 11, 2016 9:36:28 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. Biggest difference is the 2004 team didn't have the incredible talent we had last year. Which further influences perceptions when top recruits look at the results we've had with our best players over the last few years, which is nothing.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by hoyaboya on Aug 11, 2016 12:05:04 GMT -5
If 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. Biggest difference is the 2004 team didn't have the incredible talent we had last year. Which further influences perceptions when top recruits look at the results we've had with our best players over the last few years, which is nothing. How much was Esherick getting paid in 2004 compared to JT3 in 2016?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 11, 2016 12:08:16 GMT -5
How much was Esherick getting paid in 2004 compared to JT3 in 2016? This is an irrelevant question that has been debated ad nauseum elsewhere. JT3 only got about $450,000 in his first season at Georgetown. I doubt Esherick was far behind that when he left. Plus, the market for coaching salaries has boomed since 2004. Even if it was relevant, it would be a bad comparison.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 11, 2016 12:11:58 GMT -5
Biggest difference is the 2004 team didn't have the incredible talent we had last year. Which further influences perceptions when top recruits look at the results we've had with our best players over the last few years, which is nothing. Maybe, but how "incredible" was our talent, really? We didn't have anybody who was even remotely a draft pick or NBA player. That is "incredible" talent. We did not have that. I really think some fans have unrealistic ideas about how talented our team has been, and it causes their expectations to be way out of line with reality. Did we underpeform our overall talent level? Probably. But, overall our talent level last year, was (for a high major team), mediocre.
|
|
|
Post by lancasterhoyafan on Aug 11, 2016 12:18:47 GMT -5
I really think Paul White is too valuable to be relegated to only spot minutes. I could see him taking more of Copeland's minutes due to his efficiency, rebounding, and his Otto like Game IQ. A healthy Paul last year and I really think we win a lot of those close losses.
|
|
|
Post by trillesthoya on Aug 11, 2016 12:26:09 GMT -5
Biggest difference is the 2004 team didn't have the incredible talent we had last year. Which further influences perceptions when top recruits look at the results we've had with our best players over the last few years, which is nothing. Maybe, but how "incredible" was our talent, really? We didn't have anybody who was even remotely a draft pick or NBA player. That is "incredible" talent. We did not have that. I really think some fans have unrealistic ideas about how talented our team has been, and it causes their expectations to be way out of line with reality. Did we underpeform our overall talent level? Probably. But, overall our talent level last year, was (for a high major team), mediocre. I don't buy that. LJ and Isaac are both draft level talent. Govan is too, but he obviously wasn't the one-and-done type. While part of the blame for their poor performance falls on themselves, I got the vibe that in a different more open and fast paced offense both of them would be more relevant nationally than they are now. Combine that with countless other 4-star recruits and B.Hayes' break out year and that 2015-2016 roster was oozing with talent. While there are plenty of excuses for why we underperformed (poor roster construction, injuries, etc...) recruits probably aren't going to give us the benefit of the doubt anymore, especially after like ten years of this. High seeds and strong regular seasons are great, but all of us know that what really matters for team perception is what happens in March. If you combine poor March performance, consistently doing little with a lot of talent, and our failure to put any guards in the NBA since ALLEN IVERSON it's pretty obvious Georgetown is going to be a hard sell for anyone.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,774
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 11, 2016 12:37:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 11, 2016 12:44:24 GMT -5
Good to have the actual numbers. So Esherick was making about $250,000. Given that JT3 was already a much more accomplished coach when he was hired than Esherick ever was, the raise to $450,000ish sounds about right.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 11, 2016 12:46:47 GMT -5
I don't buy that. LJ and Isaac are both draft level talent. Govan is too, but he obviously wasn't the one-and-done type. While part of the blame for their poor performance falls on themselves, I got the vibe that in a different more open and fast paced offense both of them would be more relevant nationally than they are now. Combine that with countless other 4-star recruits and B.Hayes' break out year and that 2015-2016 roster was oozing with talent. While there are plenty of excuses for why we underperformed (poor roster construction, injuries, etc...) recruits probably aren't going to give us the benefit of the doubt anymore, especially after like ten years of this. High seeds and strong regular seasons are great, but all of us know that what really matters for team perception is what happens in March. If you combine poor March performance, consistently doing little with a lot of talent, and our failure to put any guards in the NBA since ALLEN IVERSON it's pretty obvious Georgetown is going to be a hard sell for anyone. No. LJ Peak and Copeland have NBA-level POTENTIAL, but they do not currently have (or did not have last year) NBA talent. The reason why teams like Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. consistently do well year-after-year is because they have NBA level talent right now. It's not potential. It's real. And again, you focus way too much on offense. Peak fouled way too much at the beginning of the year to even stay on the Court, so even if we played faster, it's unlikely he would have benefited more (and with a faster offense, he likely would have accumulated his fouls even faster). And Copeland? He shot threes horribly, and his defense was atrocious. Do these guys, especially Peak, have potential? Of course. But no, we did not have draft-level talent last year, or they would have been drafted. NOTE: When people evaluate the players each university has put into the NBA, Georgetown is almost always near the top. If I recall, we finished second only to Duke a couple of years ago when ESPN did a rating. It's true that we have not put any guards into the NBA in quite some time, but we've put a lot of several other very good players there. And, Villanova proves you can win in the NCAA tournament without NBA-level guards. Hell, we did it in 2007.
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,758
|
Post by blueandgray on Aug 16, 2016 23:46:50 GMT -5
Gang,
I have a pretty strong intuition on what the starting line up may look like....and I like it. I am not saying that this will be the starting line up opening day....but it very well could be as early as Hawaii.
Mulmore (starts from day 1) Peak Pryor Copeland Derrickson
We are going to get out and run.
In terms of minutes played....I see the breakdown as follows:
Pryor - 33 Peak - 32 Derrickson - 29 Mulmore - 24 Copeland - 18 Govan - 16 Hayes - 14 Mosely - 10 Johnson - 10
Remaining 16 minutes split between White, Cameron, Campbell, Agau and Mourning.
Obviously, most of this is pure guesswork, but I have strong suspicion that we are going to run...and run a lot. That likely means that we likely go with a smaller line up. We have the horses and are going to let them run.
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 17, 2016 6:19:43 GMT -5
Gang, I have a pretty strong intuition on what the starting line up may look like....and I like it. I am not saying that this will be the starting line up opening day....but it very well could be as early as Hawaii. Mulmore (starts from day 1) Peak Pryor Copeland Derrickson We are going to get out and run. In terms of minutes played....I see the breakdown as follows: Pryor - 33 Peak - 32 Derrickson - 29 Mulmore - 24 Copeland - 18 Govan - 16 Hayes - 14 Mosely - 10 Johnson - 10 Remaining 16 minutes split between White, Cameron, Campbell, Agau and Mourning. Obviously, most of this is pure guesswork, but I have strong suspicion that we are going to run...and run a lot. That likely means that we likely go with a smaller line up. We have the horses and are going to let them run. Your biggest surprise and most intriguing suggestion is MD at the 5. Although given the 30 minutes you estimate for GOVAN/HAYES, you seem to think MD won't be playing all that many minutes at the 5 and most of his minutes will come at the 4. Maybe your forecast about running, running, running is actually your most intriguing. That would certainly please a lot of folks on the board. Personally, I'd like to see it because of the talent on the team AND because it would signal a huge shift in philosophy on the part of Coach. In the long run, that could be the most significant new development for the Hoyas - for '16/'17 and beyond. Thanks B&G.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by calhoya on Aug 17, 2016 7:08:26 GMT -5
I hope you are right that the offensive philosophy is going to change. I hope that they run on offense and press on defense and use a deep bench to stay fresh. Problems remain that the conversion to this more uptempo style will take more than one season to implement and a different type of post than has been recruited lately. Lots of questions to answer in the immediate future if this is the new direction.
Can this smaller line-up rebound? I believe that MD is too small to play defense against bigger posts, without getting in quick foul trouble. Can he rebound against the taller opponents? How quickly can Govan improve his conditioning to be able to maintain the pace of play on both ends of the court with the other 4 players or will his production drop off as he tires? What happens to the uptempo style with Hayes in the game? Copeland is not a strong rebounder, particularly out of the 4 position and not a consistent defensive player, but flashes a couple of times each game in showing his potential. Can he achieve the consistency needed to realize that potential while playing the 4? Can Pryor rebound from the 3 against taller opponents and are the benefits of his reputed defensive skills diminished if guarding the 3 instead of the 1-2 on the other team? My understanding is that he showed the type of energy and quickness this summer that was sorely lacking on defense last year by any of the players at the 1-2.
I am all for change and in today's game the new approach that is rumored will definitely help recruiting but it could make for a frustrating year as the team transitions into a different style.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Aug 17, 2016 7:29:40 GMT -5
I hope that the team plays with an increased tempo, but still maintains the principles of a disciplined offense in the halfcourt.
The main thing I want to see is increased defensive pressure and frantic substitutions. Fingers crossed.
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,329
|
Post by vv83 on Aug 17, 2016 8:05:43 GMT -5
Most teams that play small (e.g. with a guy like Derrickson at center) don't use this as their primary lineup. Look at Golden State - they usually try to limit their "Death Lineup" (with Draymond Green at center) to 10-15 minutes a game. It is too physically tough for a guy the size of Draymond (or Derrickson) to defend full size centers for 30+ minutes a game - not just for the individual game, but for the wear and tear over the course of a season. My guess is that Thompson fully realizes he can play Derrickson at center only in strategic stretches, for 10-15 minutes a game at most.
The interesting twist would be Agau. If his knee fully recovers, he would also be a very strong "small ball" center. Things could really get interesting then - if Derrickson and Agau could each give them 10-15 minutes at center every game, then they really could play small for the majority of the game. Agau has a long way to go - he had no explosion at all in the handful of kenner games this summer. But in another 3 months, who knows? Or take it further - could he be more fully recovered by the time the BE season starts in January?
The guy I think will get squeezed out of minutes if Agau recovers is Hayes. We are going to play Govan - he is too talented, and will only get better with experience. Plus he is a good enough athlete to be the post player in a high tempo offense. Hayes is just too limited athletically, and if we really want to be a running team, we would have to play a healthy Agau ahead of Hayes.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,774
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 17, 2016 8:46:25 GMT -5
The guy I think will get squeezed out of minutes if Agau recovers is Hayes. We are going to play Govan - he is too talented, and will only get better with experience. Plus he is a good enough athlete to be the post player in a high tempo offense. Hayes is just too limited athletically, and if we really want to be a running team, we would have to play a healthy Agau ahead of Hayes. If so, why was his scholarship renewed for a fifth year? I think he'll be much more active in the lineup than some seem to think, much more of an Ed Spriggs than a Ben Gillery (for some of our veteran readers).
|
|
lucky
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 575
|
Post by lucky on Aug 17, 2016 9:02:41 GMT -5
I remember Ben going glass from the free throw line
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Aug 17, 2016 9:05:14 GMT -5
Gang, I have a pretty strong intuition on what the starting line up may look like....and I like it. I am not saying that this will be the starting line up opening day....but it very well could be as early as Hawaii. Mulmore (starts from day 1) Peak Pryor Copeland Derrickson We are going to get out and run. In terms of minutes played....I see the breakdown as follows: Pryor - 33 Peak - 32 Derrickson - 29 Mulmore - 24 Copeland - 18 Govan - 16 Hayes - 14 Mosely - 10 Johnson - 10 Remaining 16 minutes split between White, Cameron, Campbell, Agau and Mourning. Obviously, most of this is pure guesswork, but I have strong suspicion that we are going to run...and run a lot. That likely means that we likely go with a smaller line up. We have the horses and are going to let them run. The lineup you suggests is most likely the most effective offensive 5 that we can put out there and in spots would be very strong. I have real problems with putting 2 of your weakest front court defenders playing together out of position for any kind of extended time, let alone starting. The biggest problem we have had is defense. Is anyone confident that a stronger defensive back court will cover up a shaky defensive front line.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,946
|
Post by EtomicB on Aug 17, 2016 9:18:11 GMT -5
Most teams that play small (e.g. with a guy like Derrickson at center) don't use this as their primary lineup. Look at Golden State - they usually try to limit their "Death Lineup" (with Draymond Green at center) to 10-15 minutes a game. It is too physically tough for a guy the size of Draymond (or Derrickson) to defend full size centers for 30+ minutes a game - not just for the individual game, but for the wear and tear over the course of a season. My guess is that Thompson fully realizes he can play Derrickson at center only in strategic stretches, for 10-15 minutes a game at most. The interesting twist would be Agau. If his knee fully recovers, he would also be a very strong "small ball" center. Things could really get interesting then - if Derrickson and Agau could each give them 10-15 minutes at center every game, then they really could play small for the majority of the game. Agau has a long way to go - he had no explosion at all in the handful of kenner games this summer. But in another 3 months, who knows? Or take it further - could he be more fully recovered by the time the BE season starts in January? The guy I think will get squeezed out of minutes if Agau recovers is Hayes. We are going to play Govan - he is too talented, and will only get better with experience. Plus he is a good enough athlete to be the post player in a high tempo offense. Hayes is just too limited athletically, and if we really want to be a running team, we would have to play a healthy Agau ahead of Hayes. It could be argued that Hayes outplayed Govan last season, unless Govan has made big strides this off season I can't see him being that far ahead of Hayes.. I also don't think you need a high level 5 to play uptempo ball.. Xavier wasn't a slow team with Stainbrook.. Creighton plays fast with their less athletic 5 men, Marquette played fast with Gardner years back also.. My only problem with Hayes is when he's brought out high to handle the ball, imo he should only set picks up top and even then it should be more off the ball picks/screens.. Until I see otherwise Hayes should play a good amount..
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Aug 17, 2016 9:42:47 GMT -5
Agreed that Hayes will play a good amount. While he may not be fast, he is an important weapon in the half-court offense. Not many teams have a center with his size and strength.
The nice things is that the Hoyas have lots of options this year if Hayes is not playing well or the match-up does not favor him.
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,758
|
Post by blueandgray on Aug 17, 2016 11:21:23 GMT -5
The guy I think will get squeezed out of minutes if Agau recovers is Hayes. We are going to play Govan - he is too talented, and will only get better with experience. Plus he is a good enough athlete to be the post player in a high tempo offense. Hayes is just too limited athletically, and if we really want to be a running team, we would have to play a healthy Agau ahead of Hayes. If so, why was his scholarship renewed for a fifth year? I think he'll be much more active in the lineup than some seem to think, much more of an Ed Spriggs than a Ben Gillery (for some of our veteran readers). Not sure we knew what we had with Mulmore and Pryor at the time. I mean Pryor is coming in as our best player. Hayes' 5th year had been in the works for quite a while, furthermore, you definitely want a guy like Hayes in your arsenal. There will be certain matchups where we need him.
|
|