|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 4, 2017 12:52:58 GMT -5
My question is how do you know who the hot hand is/will be in a few minutes of court time? To me this method has always been flawed and kinda shortsighted.. Govan & Hayes make mistakes too, same with Derrickson, Peak and Pryor but they're allowed to play thru them, shouldn't that be the case for everyone? Agree with this. I wonder if the staff has considered lineups that don't include any of the 3 PGs. None of them have shown the ability to consistently dribble against pressure, shoot from the perimeter, or stay in front of their man. Instead of putting ourselves at a disadvantage, couldn't we just go big at the 3/4/5 and see if a larger lineup improves our mediocre rebounding? I think Govan and Derrickson provide enough respectability from deep that we could still space efficiently on the offensive end. I think you guys are making two separate points. As to going big, I'm all for using a lineup with LJ and Rodney at the guard spots and some mix of our bigs at the other three spots. You could use Kaleb at the three if there were significant matchup issues or try going zone. It may be that the overall defense (no matter the scheme) just doesn't work that way, but I'd certainly be OK trying it, particularly since it gets more offense on the court at the same time. As to playing through mistakes, we've seen Hayes and Jesse and Agau have their time severely limited in individual games when they've made significant mistakes on one or both ends of the floor. So, I don't think you're right that III has let everyone play through them. And with certain players (like LJ and Rodney), you're relying on them so much that you have to let them play through their mistakes. That is, there's not really an available replacement for those guys that you have any confidence will do better. That's not the case with our big guys. And it's not the case at the PG spot. So, no, it shouldn't be the case for everyone that they get to play through mistakes. Some players have earned the right through their performance to be held to a different standard. LJ and Rodney are probably the only two guys on our team for whom that is true. I agree that you can screw up if you pull someone after just a mistake or two, but I also think it serves to emphasize to these guys what you want them to focus on. I wouldn't pull Jagan (or any of the PGs) because he misses a fifteen footer or an open three. That might be a mistake in some sense, but it's not a hanging offense. But I would pull him if he lets someone blow by him, or carelessly turns the ball over more than once. I'd also make a separate point: Some games even the best players just don't have it. Maybe they're under the weather or whatever (the reason doesn't matter), but their play that one game just isn't at even the minimum standard we need. They don't learn anything by "playing through it" in those circumstances. They're just going to continue to not be all that good! That doesn't do anyone any good, least of all the team. So, you pull them, go with another option, and hope (a) the other option performs better; and (b) the guy you pulled is better next time.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Jan 4, 2017 13:21:30 GMT -5
My question is how do you know who the hot hand is/will be in a few minutes of court time? To me this method has always been flawed and kinda shortsighted.. Govan & Hayes make mistakes too, same with Derrickson, Peak and Pryor but they're allowed to play thru them, shouldn't that be the case for everyone? Agree with this. I wonder if the staff has considered lineups that don't include any of the 3 PGs. None of them have shown the ability to consistently dribble against pressure, shoot from the perimeter, or stay in front of their man. Instead of putting ourselves at a disadvantage, couldn't we just go big at the 3/4/5 and see if a larger lineup improves our mediocre rebounding? I think Govan and Derrickson provide enough respectability from deep that we could still space efficiently on the offensive end. A lineup of Peak, Pryor, Kaleb (or Reggie depending on need: rebounding or shooting), Derrickson, and Govan could be very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 4, 2017 13:25:55 GMT -5
There is a drastic difference between allowing players to play through everyday mistakes vs. pulling a guy for lazy or sloppy errors - or for ignoring points the staff has been emphasizing.
Also, particularly with younger or newer guys, at times you have to emphasize a teaching moment after a mistake - especially when, as with our PG's, none of them have elevated their game yet to earn the lion's share of the minutes on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 4, 2017 13:45:16 GMT -5
Agree with this. I wonder if the staff has considered lineups that don't include any of the 3 PGs. None of them have shown the ability to consistently dribble against pressure, shoot from the perimeter, or stay in front of their man. Instead of putting ourselves at a disadvantage, couldn't we just go big at the 3/4/5 and see if a larger lineup improves our mediocre rebounding? I think Govan and Derrickson provide enough respectability from deep that we could still space efficiently on the offensive end. I think you guys are making two separate points. As to going big, I'm all for using a lineup with LJ and Rodney at the guard spots and some mix of our bigs at the other three spots. You could use Kaleb at the three if there were significant matchup issues or try going zone. It may be that the overall defense (no matter the scheme) just doesn't work that way, but I'd certainly be OK trying it, particularly since it gets more offense on the court at the same time. As to playing through mistakes, we've seen Hayes and Jesse and Agau have their time severely limited in individual games when they've made significant mistakes on one or both ends of the floor. So, I don't think you're right that III has let everyone play through them. And with certain players (like LJ and Rodney), you're relying on them so much that you have to let them play through their mistakes. That is, there's not really an available replacement for those guys that you have any confidence will do better. That's not the case with our big guys. And it's not the case at the PG spot. So, no, it shouldn't be the case for everyone that they get to play through mistakes. Some players have earned the right through their performance to be held to a different standard. LJ and Rodney are probably the only two guys on our team for whom that is true. I agree that you can screw up if you pull someone after just a mistake or two, but I also think it serves to emphasize to these guys what you want them to focus on. I wouldn't pull Jagan (or any of the PGs) because he misses a fifteen footer or an open three. That might be a mistake in some sense, but it's not a hanging offense. But I would pull him if he lets someone blow by him, or carelessly turns the ball over more than once. I'd also make a separate point: Some games even the best players just don't have it. Maybe they're under the weather or whatever (the reason doesn't matter), but their play that one game just isn't at even the minimum standard we need. They don't learn anything by "playing through it" in those circumstances. They're just going to continue to not be all that good! That doesn't do anyone any good, least of all the team. So, you pull them, go with another option, and hope (a) the other option performs better; and (b) the guy you pulled is better next time. Agree with all of these points. I would be all for going more with zone simply because we've shown either an inability or unwillingness to do the things that our current defense requires. Namely, we are slow to rotate and we don't call out screens. I'm not saying we'd be great in a zone; our ability to deny entry passes to the foul line probably will be lacking in particular. But I'd rather give up a mid-range J and a maybe a few open 3s to role players on the wing than to continue allowing the other team's primary options to get into the lane at will and put us in foul trouble.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,900
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 4, 2017 14:29:58 GMT -5
Agree with this. I wonder if the staff has considered lineups that don't include any of the 3 PGs. None of them have shown the ability to consistently dribble against pressure, shoot from the perimeter, or stay in front of their man. Instead of putting ourselves at a disadvantage, couldn't we just go big at the 3/4/5 and see if a larger lineup improves our mediocre rebounding? I think Govan and Derrickson provide enough respectability from deep that we could still space efficiently on the offensive end. I think you guys are making two separate points. As to going big, I'm all for using a lineup with LJ and Rodney at the guard spots and some mix of our bigs at the other three spots. You could use Kaleb at the three if there were significant matchup issues or try going zone. It may be that the overall defense (no matter the scheme) just doesn't work that way, but I'd certainly be OK trying it, particularly since it gets more offense on the court at the same time. As to playing through mistakes, we've seen Hayes and Jesse and Agau have their time severely limited in individual games when they've made significant mistakes on one or both ends of the floor. So, I don't think you're right that III has let everyone play through them. And with certain players (like LJ and Rodney), you're relying on them so much that you have to let them play through their mistakes. That is, there's not really an available replacement for those guys that you have any confidence will do better. That's not the case with our big guys. And it's not the case at the PG spot. So, no, it shouldn't be the case for everyone that they get to play through mistakes. Some players have earned the right through their performance to be held to a different standard. LJ and Rodney are probably the only two guys on our team for whom that is true. I agree that you can screw up if you pull someone after just a mistake or two, but I also think it serves to emphasize to these guys what you want them to focus on. I wouldn't pull Jagan (or any of the PGs) because he misses a fifteen footer or an open three. That might be a mistake in some sense, but it's not a hanging offense. But I would pull him if he lets someone blow by him, or carelessly turns the ball over more than once. I'd also make a separate point: Some games even the best players just don't have it. Maybe they're under the weather or whatever (the reason doesn't matter), but their play that one game just isn't at even the minimum standard we need. They don't learn anything by "playing through it" in those circumstances. They're just going to continue to not be all that good! That doesn't do anyone any good, least of all the team. So, you pull them, go with another option, and hope (a) the other option performs better; and (b) the guy you pulled is better next time. I specifically didn't mention Agua because I knew his pt has diminishe a lot over the past 4 games, I have zero issues with that.. He's settled in on Govan, Hayes & Derrickson.. You do make good points though, I still feel that they should settle in on one kid getting the bulk of the time at the 1 spot.. I'd actually prefer JT3 to let Mosely play, he makes mistakes of aggression most of the time plus to me he represents the future more than Tre & Jon.. Having said that I can live with either of them as long as he chooses..
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,900
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 4, 2017 14:37:53 GMT -5
There is a drastic difference between allowing players to play through everyday mistakes vs. pulling a guy for lazy or sloppy errors - or for ignoring points the staff has been emphasizing. Also, particularly with younger or newer guys, at times you have to emphasize a teaching moment after a mistake - especially when, as with our PG's, none of them have elevated their game yet to earn the lion's share of the minutes on a regular basis. Jagan had a TO in the 1st minute of the X game when he tried to split a trap, the ball hadn't even crossed half court and JT3 already had Tre running to the scorers table.. Before Tre got in Jagan had a nice assist to Derrickson for a layup, picked up a steal on a bad pass & made a nice run out pass to LJ who left the open layup attempt on the front rim.. That's 3 positive plays after making one error but he was out at the next dead ball.. Who knows, he could have gone on to have a great game.. I asked this question in another thread, why start him if his rope is that short?
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 4, 2017 15:22:16 GMT -5
Pivotal game. Time to play a complete big east game and avoid the self-inflicted wounds that cost us Xavier. I wouldn't say that game was self-inflicted, I'd say more like ref-inflicted Hoyas to the line 23 times, Muskateers 38 times. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 4, 2017 15:26:02 GMT -5
We've played pretty solid basketball four of the last five games (I'm including X as "solid" and saying Marquette is the one exception). I think if we do that again today, we win. Just play solid, if unspectacular, defense without giving up a ton of easy layups or open threes or free throws. Hope they don't get hot from three even with the solid D. And then keep generating solid looks within the offense. Really, if we do that over the next five games, we ought to win at least four (given the quality of our opponents), and be right back in the thick of things. I'm not among those on the "just go with Mulmore and let him learn" bandwagon. We can't afford to let someone make significant mistakes and work through them, given where we are this year (and over the past couple years). I don't really care who starts at PG. If it's Mulmore, that's fine. But that person needs to, at a minimum, not turn the ball over, keep the opposing PG in front of him, and not miss a lot of shots. If that person can hit open threes and/or get into the lane and either score or dish, well, all the better. But I think we have to continue trying to play the hot hand there, until someone clearly shows they should get the most minutes. And if there's no hot hand, at least play the hand that isn't proactively hurting us. You should care who starts at the PG position because he/she is the coach on the court, and you need that "consistent chemistry". From getting teammates involved and being the first one back on defense. Mulmore is not the only one playing defense out there, it's a team effort.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 4, 2017 15:30:08 GMT -5
Agree with this. I wonder if the staff has considered lineups that don't include any of the 3 PGs. None of them have shown the ability to consistently dribble against pressure, shoot from the perimeter, or stay in front of their man. Instead of putting ourselves at a disadvantage, couldn't we just go big at the 3/4/5 and see if a larger lineup improves our mediocre rebounding? I think Govan and Derrickson provide enough respectability from deep that we could still space efficiently on the offensive end. A lineup of Peak, Pryor, Kaleb (or Reggie depending on need: rebounding or shooting), Derrickson, and Govan could be very interesting. 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.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 4, 2017 16:02:16 GMT -5
A lineup of Peak, Pryor, Kaleb (or Reggie depending on need: rebounding or shooting), Derrickson, and Govan could be very interesting. 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.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 4, 2017 16:06:27 GMT -5
PC game a do or die game for the Hoyas. Can't see us recovering from a 0-3 start in BE.
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Post by skyhoya on Jan 4, 2017 16:19:08 GMT -5
we need good point guard play tonite, for once.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 4, 2017 16:26:54 GMT -5
There is a drastic difference between allowing players to play through everyday mistakes vs. pulling a guy for lazy or sloppy errors - or for ignoring points the staff has been emphasizing. Also, particularly with younger or newer guys, at times you have to emphasize a teaching moment after a mistake - especially when, as with our PG's, none of them have elevated their game yet to earn the lion's share of the minutes on a regular basis. Jagan had a TO in the 1st minute of the X game when he tried to split a trap, the ball hadn't even crossed half court and JT3 already had Tre running to the scorers table.. Before Tre got in Jagan had a nice assist to Derrickson for a layup, picked up a steal on a bad pass & made a nice run out pass to LJ who left the open layup attempt on the front rim.. That's 3 positive plays after making one error but he was out at the next dead ball.. Who knows, he could have gone on to have a great game.. I asked this question in another thread, why start him if his rope is that short? I have a recollection that Jagan also lost his man pretty badly on D in that first minute, possibly the bigger mistake in the coach's eyes.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Jan 4, 2017 16:39:14 GMT -5
A lineup of Peak, Pryor, Kaleb (or Reggie depending on need: rebounding or shooting), Derrickson, and Govan could be very interesting. 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)?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,900
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 4, 2017 16:57:54 GMT -5
Jagan had a TO in the 1st minute of the X game when he tried to split a trap, the ball hadn't even crossed half court and JT3 already had Tre running to the scorers table.. Before Tre got in Jagan had a nice assist to Derrickson for a layup, picked up a steal on a bad pass & made a nice run out pass to LJ who left the open layup attempt on the front rim.. That's 3 positive plays after making one error but he was out at the next dead ball.. Who knows, he could have gone on to have a great game.. I asked this question in another thread, why start him if his rope is that short? I have a recollection that Jagan also lost his man pretty badly on D in that first minute, possibly the bigger mistake in the coach's eyes. He did foul Sumner early in the game but that happened well into the paint as he was going up for a shot, not quite a blow by.. Again I ask, if the rope is that short why start Mosely?
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 4, 2017 17:13:14 GMT -5
Unfortunately none of our PG's have earned much of a tether at this point. I suspect one of Jagan's mistakes was so contrary to a point of emphasis that JTIII felt he had to pull him out to hammer the point home.
I desperately hope that one of our guys will elevate his game to earn the spot, and stay in the game until test or fouls require otherwise.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 4, 2017 17:14:49 GMT -5
There is a drastic difference between allowing players to play through everyday mistakes vs. pulling a guy for lazy or sloppy errors - or for ignoring points the staff has been emphasizing. Also, particularly with younger or newer guys, at times you have to emphasize a teaching moment after a mistake - especially when, as with our PG's, none of them have elevated their game yet to earn the lion's share of the minutes on a regular basis. Jagan had a TO in the 1st minute of the X game when he tried to split a trap, the ball hadn't even crossed half court and JT3 already had Tre running to the scorers table.. Before Tre got in Jagan had a nice assist to Derrickson for a layup, picked up a steal on a bad pass & made a nice run out pass to LJ who left the open layup attempt on the front rim.. That's 3 positive plays after making one error but he was out at the next dead ball.. Who knows, he could have gone on to have a great game.. I asked this question in another thread, why start him if his rope is that short? His rope is that short because he hasn't been playing well. You act like that one bad pass is the only one he's had recently. That makes about 10 over the past 2-4 games.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,900
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 4, 2017 18:05:57 GMT -5
Jagan had a TO in the 1st minute of the X game when he tried to split a trap, the ball hadn't even crossed half court and JT3 already had Tre running to the scorers table.. Before Tre got in Jagan had a nice assist to Derrickson for a layup, picked up a steal on a bad pass & made a nice run out pass to LJ who left the open layup attempt on the front rim.. That's 3 positive plays after making one error but he was out at the next dead ball.. Who knows, he could have gone on to have a great game.. I asked this question in another thread, why start him if his rope is that short? His rope is that short because he hasn't been playing well. You act like that one bad pass is the only one he's had recently. That makes about 10 over the past 2-4 games. So why continue to start him?
|
|
russodj
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 265
|
Post by russodj on Jan 4, 2017 18:15:47 GMT -5
Anyone know how to stream CBS Sports Network?
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 4, 2017 18:36:01 GMT -5
His rope is that short because he hasn't been playing well. You act like that one bad pass is the only one he's had recently. That makes about 10 over the past 2-4 games. So why continue to start him? I believe that that is the mystery that we are discussing...
|
|