|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 6, 2017 11:50:36 GMT -5
If you don't play your point guard, f point guards because we only have one true pg, Mulmore, but I like the way Jagan runs the point but he's not quite ready to be full time at this spot, you will lose. You will play right into the hands of your opponents not having a true point guard on the court. Most coaches know if you cut the head of the snake (point guard) off you will win the game, it's simple. I don't think some people know how crucial point guard is and what it does. I agree entirely with you in theory. In our current situation though, if none of our 3 role player PGs are playing well, we're cutting the head of our own snake already. If all things were equal, I'd always have a Point Guard on the floor. At the same time, you need your best players to play. If your top 6 best players aren't PGs, would it be that detrimental for the lineup of the top 5 players to play together without a PG (not the entire game or crucial situations, just midway through the halves)? has nothing to do with being equal. Look at all the other teams point guard in college hoops especially the successful teams! Yes, always have a coach on the court (point guard). Bottom line I don't if you have your point guard on the court you will lose period. We need a steady point guard. Mulmore needs to start. He's the type of pg who needs to get in a rhythm and to build team chemistry. As you can the chemistry is very inconsistent because our guard play is very inconsistent. My thought.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 6, 2017 11:51:13 GMT -5
MUST WIN SEASON RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW GO HOYAS be meanary up for forty minutes OR MORE must win yup MUST LOL HILARIOUS ON THIS MUST WIN STUFF! ...
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 6, 2017 11:51:36 GMT -5
In other news, Grayson Allen's "indefinite" suspension lasted all of one game. straight BS.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 6, 2017 11:53:24 GMT -5
Mulmore needs to start. He's the type of pg who needs to get in a rhythm and to build team chemistry. As you can the chemistry is very inconsistent because our guard play is very inconsistent. My thought. glidehoyas, I admire your enthusiasm for point guards, and I agree it'd be great to have one, but even you have to admit that Mulmore hasn't played all that well thus far. Depending on how long Campbell is out, Mulmore is going to get plenty of time, so you may get your wish. He's shown flashes of good stuff, but he's by no means the solution to this team being off the rails.
|
|
KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on Jan 6, 2017 11:57:18 GMT -5
I agree entirely with you in theory. In our current situation though, if none of our 3 role player PGs are playing well, we're cutting the head of our own snake already. If all things were equal, I'd always have a Point Guard on the floor. At the same time, you need your best players to play. If your top 6 best players aren't PGs, would it be that detrimental for the lineup of the top 5 players to play together without a PG (not the entire game or crucial situations, just midway through the halves)? has nothing to do with being equal. Look at all the other teams point guard in college hoops especially the successful teams! Yes, always have a coach on the court (point guard). Bottom line I don't if you have your point guard on the court you will lose period. We need a steady point guard. Mulmore needs to start. He's the type of pg who needs to get in a rhythm and to build team chemistry. As you can the chemistry is very inconsistent because our guard play is very inconsistent. My thought. I agree it's time for Mulmore to start but no one should be under any illusion that he is the magic elixir for this team. His defense on Sumner in particular was, to be charitable, absent. But, he won't get better without more playing time and at 8-7 I don't see the downside in starting now.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 6, 2017 11:57:27 GMT -5
If you don't play your point guard, f point guards because we only have one true pg, Mulmore, but I like the way Jagan runs the point but he's not quite ready to be full time at this spot, you will lose. You will play right into the hands of your opponents not having a true point guard on the court. Most coaches know if you cut the head of the snake (point guard) off you will win the game, it's simple. I don't think some people know how crucial point guard is and what it does. Agree on the PG being critical to success, but if we don't have anyone who can play the position effectively on a consistent basis (and especially in critical moments), I don't see why we need to play one of them at all times just to say we did. It would be one thing if we absolutely needed at least one on the floor to bring the ball up against pressure, for example, but we haven't been able to beat pressure with a PG all year either. I know you like Mulmore for the majority of the minutes at PG and I agree with you that at this point he's the best option of the 3, but if we are getting killed on the glass and none of the PGs are effective, I'd like to see JTIII go big and maybe exploit a different matchup to our advantage. At this point, we have nothing to lose by trying something new. We do have a point guard that can play this position on a consistent basis but coach keeps switching up. You can't do this. Causes too much confusion for teammates. And yes, during crucial moments. And it's not just to say we did. DO YOU KNOW POINT GUARD PLAY! IF SO, TELL ME ABOUT IT!!! Yes, we've beaten pressure on presses. YOU ABSOLUTELY NEED A POINT GUARD TO WIN GAMES!!! Something new would be putting Mulmore FULL TIME at the point! Killed on the glass? Pg has nothing to do with this. You big have everything to do with this.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 6, 2017 12:00:43 GMT -5
Mulmore needs to start. He's the type of pg who needs to get in a rhythm and to build team chemistry. As you can the chemistry is very inconsistent because our guard play is very inconsistent. My thought. glidehoyas, I admire your enthusiasm for point guards, and I agree it'd be great to have one, but even you have to admit that Mulmore hasn't played all that well thus far. Depending on how long Campbell is out, Mulmore is going to get plenty of time, so you may get your wish. He's shown flashes of good stuff, but he's by no means the solution to this team being off the rails. His last game wasn't great. If you play anyone kid at his position CONSISTENTLY he/she will for most of the time play consistent. Other games in the minutes Mulmore has gotten he has done some good things! Against Xavier he balled out then coach put Campbell and the Hoyas went downhill from there!Mulmore has to demand the ball! LOL. Hopefully I'll get my wish. Haven't so far. He will still start Mosely for some odd reason!!! smh... Free the bench.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 6, 2017 12:08:27 GMT -5
has nothing to do with being equal. Look at all the other teams point guard in college hoops especially the successful teams! Yes, always have a coach on the court (point guard). Bottom line I don't if you have your point guard on the court you will lose period. We need a steady point guard. Mulmore needs to start. He's the type of pg who needs to get in a rhythm and to build team chemistry. As you can the chemistry is very inconsistent because our guard play is very inconsistent. My thought. I agree it's time for Mulmore to start but no one should be under any illusion that he is the magic elixir for this team. His defense on Sumner in particular was, to be charitable, absent. But, he won't get better without more playing time and at 8-7 I don't see the downside in starting now. Crazy how people assume. I'm so sick of people assuming and putting words in other's mouths. Why? And be wrong! Who said Mulmore was a "magic elixir" for this team. Funny how other point guards are for their team. Hmm. Can he be a savior for the Hoyas at the point. Yes, I think so because I know basketball starts and ends with great point guard play! I've seen him comeback and win games but attacking the basket and kicking out. Forcing turnovers (game changer). Should be the first one back on defense. No one in the big east can stop Sumner don't put the blame on all Mulmore. He kept his team in the game. It takes a team effort on DEFENSE! Don't forget!!!
|
|
KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on Jan 6, 2017 14:54:21 GMT -5
I agree it's time for Mulmore to start but no one should be under any illusion that he is the magic elixir for this team. His defense on Sumner in particular was, to be charitable, absent. But, he won't get better without more playing time and at 8-7 I don't see the downside in starting now. Crazy how people assume. I'm so sick of people assuming and putting words in other's mouths. Why? And be wrong! Who said Mulmore was a "magic elixir" for this team. Funny how other point guards are for their team. Hmm. Can he be a savior for the Hoyas at the point. Yes, I think so because I know basketball starts and ends with great point guard play! I've seen him comeback and win games but attacking the basket and kicking out. Forcing turnovers (game changer). Should be the first one back on defense. No one in the big east can stop Sumner don't put the blame on all Mulmore. He kept his team in the game. It takes a team effort on DEFENSE! Don't forget!!! I was agreeing with you.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jan 6, 2017 15:21:49 GMT -5
See, the difference is that I truly believe Georgetown CAN have it both ways- it has done so in the past, and has succeeded in doing so as recently as 2015!!! In trying to achieve that objective, you have to be willing to take risks. Here, I believe that the appropriate risk is staying the course and trusting your current staff. There are smart and rational reasons for doing so and I hope the school keeps that in mind. Also, I think DePaul is one or two good Chicago recruits away from being very relevant at any given time. If in 2020, we found ourselves in the same position DePaul is in now, because the school chose to take my advice and stick with this staff, I would be in no respect freaking out, disinterested, depressed, etc. I would be PROUD to be a Hoya fan and would hope that the program could turn it around- but only by doing things the right way. I WOULD be disinterested in a Georgetown program that sacrificed its values because of some external or self-imposed "win or else" attitude. Winning is an important aspiration for Georgetown basketball, but the prerequisite is and should remain doing things the right way. There are VERY few coaches the Hoya program can trust to do that, come heck or high water. We have one now- a guy who has achieved success that most coaches never taste. I say stick with him. I admire and envy your loyalty to the school, the program and the coach. However, your assumption seems to be that only this coach can "do things the right way." I think you go too far. I do not assume that only Georgetown and this coach do things the right way. I also do not believe that any fan should be unable to demand that this expensive program and significant symbol of the university not place as high an emphasis on producing a quality team and product as it does on doing things the right way. During my time at the university, while Big John emerged as a champion for social reform that made us proud, he never de-emphasized having a winning program. JT III should be judged on his job performance now, not 10 years ago. If you think that his performance as a coach merits retention until 2020, then so be it. But he should not be retained because of the assumption that only he can do things the right way. I am not saying JT III is the only coach who can do things the right way, but I am saying that the options are very limited if your criteria is someone who you are virtually certain never would cheat or embarrass the school in any circumstance. And independent of that, yes, I believe that his job performance merits retention through 2020.
|
|