kghoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,995
|
Post by kghoya on Feb 8, 2017 4:02:58 GMT -5
Villanova is playing all week night home games on campus and weekend home games at wells Fargo during the conf season.
This has nothing to do with the quality of opponent.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Feb 8, 2017 6:08:10 GMT -5
I am proud of the Hoyas for the way they competed and fought back last night. Solid effort against an excellent opponent. I hope they can get Nova at home.
|
|
hoyarad
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 521
|
Post by hoyarad on Feb 8, 2017 8:02:57 GMT -5
Say what you will but this game in a vacuum was not something the team should hang their heads about. They sucked for a period of the 1st half but responded and got back in it on the road. That shows heart and desire. Glad they didn't quit like many of us (including me) did at halftime. I know the haters of III on this board get to use this as another data point but I think that is completely unfair. I'm not talking about anything else but this game. There are four days until our next game to keep beating the drum but why do it so quickly right after this game? It just makes all of you seem so agenda driven. Take a moment to analyze the game. For example, why not discuss whether the awful shooting from Nova scorers in the second half was because of them or our defense? Proud of our guys to keep fighting. They made it an exciting second half and I appreciate that. As long as the team keeps fighting I will keep watching and cheering. We can save the coach talk for the offseason. Time to get hot and play some nasty three man game between Peak, Pryor and Govan. Go Hoyas! Way to compete tonight. I'm glad they made it a game in the second half but Villanova was not hitting their shots. Also, you cannot take this game in a vacuum. It continues a trend of poor execution by our most experienced players. Unfortunately that points to the coaching or the recruiting or both.
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,508
|
Post by bostonfan on Feb 8, 2017 8:10:37 GMT -5
The effort to compete for the entire game was impressive in a game that it would have been easy for Georgetown to give up early in the second half. I will take that as a positive from last night, but watching the game really made some of the reasons why Nova is so successful and the Hoyas struggle more clear then ever.
Nova is not a more skilled or more athletic team, what they are is a better prepared and coached team. It is clear they are well drilled in the fundamentals that help them with the little things that allow them to win close games. They don't panic when confronted with pressure defense and throw the ball away. They simply continue to pivot or use ball fakes until they can make a play. They execute what they want to run flawlessly and are in position where their teammates can find them and that turns into open shots. In the first half they made all those open shots, in the second half they missed shots but still executed what they wanted.
Most importantly, they all play solid fundamental defense for entire possessions. You see all five players in an athletic defense stance, not only the player on the ball but the players on the weak side. This allows them them to be quicker to loose balls and offensive rebounds. For the most part last night the Hoyas played good on ball defense, but if you watch the game and pay attention to the defenders on the weak side you see all of the Hoyas standing straight up and flat footed. That makes them a step slow to provide help defense, a step slow to loose balls and a step slow blocking out on rebounds. I don't know if it is conditioning or is not something that the staff focuses on, but it was a stark difference last night.
Playing defense like that has nothing to do with skill or athleticism, it is about a requirement that the coaching staff and the program put on the players. If they want to play then they need to play that way all the time. It takes more focus and more effort but Nova is able to do that with just a 7 man rotation.
The Hoyas showed they have the players to compete with the number 2 team in the country last night, but the little things ended up costing them a huge win.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,927
|
Post by EtomicB on Feb 8, 2017 8:49:31 GMT -5
These skill can be taught.. When you see kids like Hart, Bridges, Jenkins, Divcenzo none of whom were lead guards coming out of HS making plays off the bounce consistently it shows that the Nova staff is teaching these skill(s).. Even Brunson is much better this season than last.. Taught by our staff or the theoretical next staff that understands the game? Taught by this staff, definitely.. A better lead guard will be a welcome sight but the team still has to be taught where to be on the court, Waters isn't gonna make it up for teammates on the fly.. It's not a surprise to me that the pass that led to Hart's 3 pointer at the end wasn't made by Brunson or Divencenzo.. The Nova staff has taught a system & developed playmakers, the Gtown staff needs to do the same..
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Feb 8, 2017 9:15:50 GMT -5
The missed free throws & turnovers at key points continues to be maddening. Nice that we got back into it after they were on fire in the first half, but our execution continues to be a step behind.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Feb 8, 2017 9:22:58 GMT -5
The game was nearly over when what should have been a three-point play punctuated by a dunk turned into a missed dunk and one made free throw. We needed that one.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Feb 8, 2017 9:39:54 GMT -5
Yes please, recreate the apology I never gave. You actually are stating that I would lose a landslide poll that we've fallen from our heyday? Are you drunk? I made zero mention of Villanova's NC run. Did you think we'd be pulling the cream of the crop off the ACC, B1G, BIG12, and PAC-12 to make our new conference?? We took the best of what was available and cherry picked a few mid-major conferences. Is Gonzaga a mid-major team this year? I agree that we have failed our mandate in the new conference and should have been one of the top teams. I agree it will be an effort for the next coach to dig it out. If we were to have a different Coach to carry the banner, they'll need to make the player they get work at any level. Otherwise after their early success, we'll be in this exact same situation 10 years down the road. Our legacy may be hurting but even if you tell the kids today: Ewing, Iverson, Mutonbo, Mourning...they know who they are. Is it the same as directly post NCAA runs when the guys were stars: no! But look at a school like Baylor. They had a perpetual NCAA failing reputation, overcame that, and now the perception has changed. Or SMU: their entire Atheltics Department got put to death, they were terrible for year, but have re-invested and all their programs are recovering. In today's world, memories are short and brands can be built (especially if there is still history to lean back on). To your last point, I'm just saying that this EXACT THREAD is for discussing the basketball game. Discuss the program elsewhere... Apology accepted. Gonzaga is a joke and we all know will be exposed in the tournament. If you are speaking of teams for the conference I knew what we'd be picking from but didn't expect them to all surpass us this quickly and make us look like a bottom barrel team while our lesser rival wins a NC and is now the top of the conference. At least you acknowledge we need a coach to dig us out of this. So for that I'm hopeful for this board. I think Gonzaga could be as good as the Witchita St. team that loss in the 2nd Rd to Kentucky in 2014. Depending on their draw they should get to at least the Sweet 16, but they are going to be a tough out ala Witchita St.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,382
|
Post by drquigley on Feb 8, 2017 11:25:06 GMT -5
Taught by our staff or the theoretical next staff that understands the game? Taught by this staff, definitely.. A better lead guard will be a welcome sight but the team still has to be taught where to be on the court, Waters isn't gonna make it up for teammates on the fly.. It's not a surprise to me that the pass that led to Hart's 3 pointer at the end wasn't made by Brunson or Divencenzo.. The Nova staff has taught a system & developed playmakers, the Gtown staff needs to do the same.. Sorta what comes first, the players or the coaches? I think the Nova coaching staff has a mind set of what it takes to succeed in today's college basketball and recruits players who have the skills they are looking for or can be coached-up to acquire them. During the game they had 3 sometimes 4 guys on the court who could dribble penetrate, pass, hit 3's and play great defense. At most we have one guy (LJ) who can do 2 or 3 of those things. During Nova's run to a 17 point lead (as one poster pointed out) it looked like we were a JV team playing against the varsity. They cooled off in the second half, due in part to our better defense, but when they are cooking they showed, like they did last year in the NCAA tourney, that they are unbeatable. I keep saying on this board that they are the model that JT3 should be using. Stop going for the playmaking point guard or the hot shooting forward or the great defender. We need guys who can do all three. And as for the big man U. Other than an eraser in the paint, like Ochefu or Hibbert, we should focus on the 6'6" - 6'-8" swing men like Otto Porter.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 8, 2017 11:32:50 GMT -5
Taught by this staff, definitely.. A better lead guard will be a welcome sight but the team still has to be taught where to be on the court, Waters isn't gonna make it up for teammates on the fly.. It's not a surprise to me that the pass that led to Hart's 3 pointer at the end wasn't made by Brunson or Divencenzo.. The Nova staff has taught a system & developed playmakers, the Gtown staff needs to do the same.. Sorta what comes first, the players or the coaches? I think the Nova coaching staff has a mind set of what it takes to succeed in today's college basketball and recruits players who have the skills they are looking for or can be coached-up to acquire them. During the game they had 3 sometimes 4 guys on the court who could dribble penetrate, pass, hit 3's and play great defense. At most we have one guy (LJ) who can do 2 or 3 of those things. During Nova's run to a 17 point lead (as one poster pointed out) it looked like we were a JV team playing against the varsity. They cooled off in the second half, due in part to our better defense, but when they are cooking they showed, like they did last year in the NCAA tourney, that they are unbeatable. I keep saying on this board that they are the model that JT3 should be using. Stop going for the playmaking point guard or the hot shooting forward or the great defender. We need guys who can do all three. And as for the big man U. Other than an eraser in the paint, like Ochefu or Hibbert, we should focus on the 6'6" - 6'-8" swing men like Otto Porter. If you look at the recruiting classes, I think JT3 has gone that route starting with the Porter/Wittington class--Porter, Whittington, Trawick, Domingo, Copeland, Mourning, Peak, White, Derrickson and Kaleb were all recruited play the 2-4 as players that could dribble/pass/shoot/defend. Some were obviously bigger projects than others, but regardless of the hype, the problem is that, for various reasons, only Porter, Peak and Trawick have actually developed into that type of player. Derrickson is on his way, I think, but even if he turns into a star next year, that's still less than one player reaching their potential in five classes. As it stands, 2 stars (Porter & Peak) and one really good player (Trawick) isn't going to get it done over 5 recruiting classes.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Feb 8, 2017 12:09:18 GMT -5
Taught by this staff, definitely.. A better lead guard will be a welcome sight but the team still has to be taught where to be on the court, Waters isn't gonna make it up for teammates on the fly.. It's not a surprise to me that the pass that led to Hart's 3 pointer at the end wasn't made by Brunson or Divencenzo.. The Nova staff has taught a system & developed playmakers, the Gtown staff needs to do the same.. Sorta what comes first, the players or the coaches? I think the Nova coaching staff has a mind set of what it takes to succeed in today's college basketball and recruits players who have the skills they are looking for or can be coached-up to acquire them. During the game they had 3 sometimes 4 guys on the court who could dribble penetrate, pass, hit 3's and play great defense. At most we have one guy (LJ) who can do 2 or 3 of those things. During Nova's run to a 17 point lead (as one poster pointed out) it looked like we were a JV team playing against the varsity. They cooled off in the second half, due in part to our better defense, but when they are cooking they showed, like they did last year in the NCAA tourney, that they are unbeatable. I keep saying on this board that they are the model that JT3 should be using. Stop going for the playmaking point guard or the hot shooting forward or the great defender. We need guys who can do all three. And as for the big man U. Other than an eraser in the paint, like Ochefu or Hibbert, we should focus on the 6'6" - 6'-8" swing men like Otto Porter. JTIII has been coach since 2004. People have a 13 season sample of how guards perform for the Hoyas. At this point the guard play or lack of development of guard play is going to be what it is. The best 2 guards to come out of this program with the ability to get to the next level is Wright and Peak looks to be on his way and that is it. Wright, Starks, DSR all avg. double figure scoring and at least 4 assts for their last year. Just think about that if Tremont Waters comes in and gives double digit scoring and 4 assts then that is on par with past production. The question then becomes if that production is good enough to have the Hoyas compete at an average level?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,927
|
Post by EtomicB on Feb 8, 2017 13:02:07 GMT -5
Taught by this staff, definitely.. A better lead guard will be a welcome sight but the team still has to be taught where to be on the court, Waters isn't gonna make it up for teammates on the fly.. It's not a surprise to me that the pass that led to Hart's 3 pointer at the end wasn't made by Brunson or Divencenzo.. The Nova staff has taught a system & developed playmakers, the Gtown staff needs to do the same.. Sorta what comes first, the players or the coaches? I think the Nova coaching staff has a mind set of what it takes to succeed in today's college basketball and recruits players who have the skills they are looking for or can be coached-up to acquire them. During the game they had 3 sometimes 4 guys on the court who could dribble penetrate, pass, hit 3's and play great defense. At most we have one guy (LJ) who can do 2 or 3 of those things. During Nova's run to a 17 point lead (as one poster pointed out) it looked like we were a JV team playing against the varsity. They cooled off in the second half, due in part to our better defense, but when they are cooking they showed, like they did last year in the NCAA tourney, that they are unbeatable. I keep saying on this board that they are the model that JT3 should be using. Stop going for the playmaking point guard or the hot shooting forward or the great defender. We need guys who can do all three. And as for the big man U. Other than an eraser in the paint, like Ochefu or Hibbert, we should focus on the 6'6" - 6'-8" swing men like Otto Porter. Kids like Bridges or Jenkins or Devincenzo or Hart even weren't known to be facilitators in HS but they all have the skill set now.. Every wing type kid has the potential to be better ball handlers, passers, shooters ECT.. This thought that Wright & staff can see the kids who can be developed or not is hyperbole imo.. What Gtown player doesn't have the ability to jump stop or pump fake better?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 13:13:21 GMT -5
The you can develop lead guard skills in College argument is one of the weirdest Hoya Talk arguments to me.. Sure it can happen but it takes a lot of time, see Peak/Jabril. The majority of kids show these type of skills in HS. Just because you play the 2 in HS doesn't mean you don't have that skill. Divincenzo averaged close to 3 assts at the 2 guard spot in EYBL, that skill has been present. Hart has always been a smart player who makes the correct play. Kris Jenking/Bridges and Divincenzo avg around the same number of assist per game as Marcus Derrickson and less than Mosely while playing more minutes. This board is hella reactionary! Love you guys!
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Feb 8, 2017 13:24:25 GMT -5
You have to recruit guys who have skills or at least raw skills that can been refined with sound coaching.
Villanova has been doing this since Wright was their coach.
180 transformations happen in college, but not often. Some raw skill has to be there.
Wright has been running small ball with great success for some time.
He has a philosophy that works and recruits to it.
Wright couldn't do much with the guards on our roster.
Quick question, how many guards on our roster did Villanova also offer a scholarship?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 8, 2017 13:49:18 GMT -5
Sorta what comes first, the players or the coaches? I think the Nova coaching staff has a mind set of what it takes to succeed in today's college basketball and recruits players who have the skills they are looking for or can be coached-up to acquire them. During the game they had 3 sometimes 4 guys on the court who could dribble penetrate, pass, hit 3's and play great defense. At most we have one guy (LJ) who can do 2 or 3 of those things. I think this hits on a key point. Skills are really what matters in college basketball. Skills include: dribbling, shooting, passing, etc. As you say, we really don't have many players who have multiple skills, and therein lies the problem. People like to say we have tons of "talent" and compare "talent" levels. What is "talent" anyway? Well, dictionary.com says "natural aptitude or skill." But, I think there's a big difference there. I think that "talent" as we often reference in relation to players and recruits is natural aptitude - i.e., athleticism/height/potential to get better. In contrast, I think "skill" is the actual set of tools that a player presently has. Now, can someone improve their skills? Of course. We see it all the time, including on Georgetown, even though some insist otherwise. L.J. Peak is a good example. He came into Georgetown with certain skills, and he's honed those skills and added to his skill set. That's why I think focusing on "skills" is more useful than "talent." If you have shooting skills in high school, you're likely going to have them in college. If you can pass well in high school, you're going to likely pass well in college. Now, if you are athletic, etc. that can be useful, but not if it's not paired with skills. That's why I really think the focus both in recruiting and in comparing ourselves to other teams needs to be on the skills players have versus the highly subjective "talent" somebody might have. That's why there's so much disagreement. For example, look at Isaac Copeland. A lot of people look at him as having had a lot of "talent." But, really, what skills did he have, and what skills at a high level? Very few. Now, his recruiting ranking may have been based on potential (and there's something to be said for that), but if talent doesn't get processed into skill, it's essentially useless. Now, who is responsible for developing skills? I really think it's a combination of the player and the coaches. Coaches are there to provide suggestions, advice, and guidance on improving skills, and then it's up to the player to also put in the time and effort to improve. Now, some guys are hindered by their natural aptitude, whereas others aren't. And some take to coaching better than others. It's really a combination.
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,508
|
Post by bostonfan on Feb 8, 2017 14:00:10 GMT -5
You have to recruit guys who have skills or at least raw skills that can been refined with sound coaching. Villanova has been doing this since Wright was their coach. 180 transformations happen in college, but not often. Some raw skill has to be there. Wright has been running small ball with great success for some time. He has a philosophy that works and recruits to it. Wright couldn't do much with the guards on our roster. Quick question, how many guards on our roster did Villanova also offer a scholarship? Not sure how many of our current players Nova offered but I think Wright would have made all of the players on our current team better fundamental players. The Nova kids show more poise and commitment to what their team does than many of our players, and all the Nova players are committed to playing solid fundamental defense on every possession. You can't tell me anyone saw Jenkins in high school and thought he would become a good defender, but he works hard on defense and is not the liability that many of the Hoyas are on defense. Jenkins is not the most athletic kid but stays in a good solid defensive stance the entire possession.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Feb 8, 2017 14:01:24 GMT -5
Also, with what a player does in high school, a good recruiter can recognize if the kid's skills can translate to the college level. Not only that, will this kid's skills fit the program's offensive and defensive system at the college level.
Did Bo Ryan have high recruiting rankings when he was at Wisconsin? He had a system and recruited kids that fit his system with much success.
What about Tony Bennett at Virginia?
Look at Turgeon at Maryland. He has a good mix of players. Maryland isn't exactly world-beaters. We had them beat this year. Yet somehow they recruit guys that fit what they are trying to do and it works.
|
|
FrazierFanatic
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,564
Member is Online
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Feb 8, 2017 14:59:40 GMT -5
So I guess the obvious question becomes whether we are not adept at recruiting the right kids for what we do - or have we mutated our "system" to the point that it is so undefinable that it is difficult, if not impossible, to recruit players to fit the system? 'cuz what we have had the last couple of years clearly is not working.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,328
|
Post by prhoya on Feb 8, 2017 16:04:55 GMT -5
So I guess the obvious question becomes whether we are not adept at recruiting the right kids for what we do - or have we mutated our "system" to the point that it is so undefinable that it is difficult, if not impossible, to recruit players to fit the system? 'cuz what we have had the last couple of years clearly is not working. Interesting topic which should not wait until the off-season to analyze since the recruiting period is upon us... Among other things, I think JT3 has done some knee-jerk reaction recruiting. For example, we lost a shooter (Hollis), therefore try to get a shooter (i.e. Domingo) at all cost; or we were not a good defensive team, try to get a defensive player (i.e., Rivers) at all cost. The mystery of Bolden is in a category by itself. This has resulted in some bad choices and one-dimensional players truly lacking in other fundamentals like scoring, dribbling, passing, etc... Also, we have tried to recruit top ranked players at all cost, not thinking fit and risk, instead of casting the net wide and having solid plan B's and C's. This has changed some recently. Most importantly, JT3 has to have a plan on how he wants to play and stick to it by recruiting to it. If the Princeton offense depends on the five players on the court to be able to pass, dribble, cut and shoot (of course, high I.Q.), then how can he have the players we've seen recently who do not match that profile. No, instead he wanted athletes above all else, except scoring (DSR), and fill holes left at the end of the recruiting periods. I think he has changed from the Princeton in Steroids to trying to run more, but never having the players to do both well and not knowing how to coach it. He's a corporate lawyer trying to litigate or he's a Ob/Gyn starting to practice as a Psychiatrist, without the risk of it affecting his multi-million dollar income.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,355
|
Post by calhoya on Feb 8, 2017 16:17:52 GMT -5
It's not just recruiting to fit the system as systems can and do change. It is as much about recruiting kids who fit with each other. Having speedy athletic wings with massive immobile bigs does not fit. At one point we had no pgs but numerous wings. Speed without rebounding bigs to get them the ball. Lack of shooting guards. Lack of shooting wings. I look at recent rosters and see teams with players whose skills are not complementary. I do not blame the kids. I believe that the players on this team are skilled in various ways and to varying degrees. I just do not know if they fit as a group.
|
|