tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,328
|
Post by tashoya on Apr 19, 2018 23:17:21 GMT -5
I’m looking forward to the dr’s answer. How much better would they be? Slaughtered every team they played in the tourney including teams with huge big men. Have to wonder how college PE would fare in the 3 point era especially against a team like Nova. Game has just changed so much. I guess you're asking would I rather have college PE or Paschal? In today's game I'd take Paschal. Not the defensive monster PE was but much better shooter and much better handle. The game has changed a ton but young Patrick had a solid mid-range and was far quicker than post-knee problem Patrick with a lot of bounce to boot. There are a ton of guys that you can watch in videos from the eighties and nineties that you can tell that, based on pure speed, wouldn't be able to compete today. Patrick isn't one of those guys. He was also underrated as a passer. He'd demand a double team every time at a minimum (and that still might not be enough) opening up shooters from 3. Patrick would make Angel Delgado look like a promising sixth man and Angel was a helluva college player.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by drquigley on Apr 20, 2018 10:15:42 GMT -5
How much better would they be? Slaughtered every team they played in the tourney including teams with huge big men. Have to wonder how college PE would fare in the 3 point era especially against a team like Nova. Game has just changed so much. I guess you're asking would I rather have college PE or Paschal? In today's game I'd take Paschal. Not the defensive monster PE was but much better shooter and much better handle. Don’t know if you saw Pat’s college days, but there is a reason for all of his awards... and Pat was double- and tripled-teamed... plus he was nth times better than any defender on the Nova team... imagine Pat one-vs-one with the rest of the players around the perimeter! I think this idea that a traditional big cannot be a top player in college nowadays is a knee-jerk reaction to the Nova wins. The fact is Nova was playing with the POY controlling the game and two other projected first round picks (Bridges and DiV.), all with good experience not newbies, plus another 4 good all-around players. That’s what you need to win a championship any year. Remember when we had two first-rounders with good depth? How about when Duke won it’s last championship, do you know how many 3s Okafor took all year? Answer: Zero. How many did Kennedy Meeks take for last year’s champion UNC all year? Answer: Zero. No, to win it’s not necessary to have a big that steps out and hits from the perimeter. It’s college basketball. A dominaring traditional big will do. What’s needed is all-around talent that goes at least 7 deep, balance, chemistry, and experienced leaders... oh, and great coaching and recruiting helps. Give me college Pat any day over any college center in today’s game. Sadly, I'm old enough to remember a lot. As the saying goes, I see a lot more in my rear view mirror than I do out the windshield. I guess the question is what is "a dominating big man" in today's game? Meeks and Oakafor didn't shoot three's because they couldn't. If they could those UNC and Duke teams would have been significantly better. And that's my point. The Nova model emphasizes overall skill and attitude over size. That's why I'm concerned when we Board members start obsessing over our incoming (and existing) bigs height or wing span. Jesse Govan would have been a "dominating big man" years ago but in today's game he has to play defense away from the basket and be able to score off the dribble. So while I'd love to have a college PE I'd also just as soon have a Paschall or Spellman. Or better yet no "dominating big man" but a bunch of DIV's or Bridges.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 20, 2018 10:28:39 GMT -5
Adding Patrick to Nova would have obviously made them better. But it's a silly argument, as Patrick Ewings are rare, and are likely about to be allowed to go pro immediately soon.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,358
|
Post by prhoya on Apr 20, 2018 11:00:40 GMT -5
Don’t know if you saw Pat’s college days, but there is a reason for all of his awards... and Pat was double- and tripled-teamed... plus he was nth times better than any defender on the Nova team... imagine Pat one-vs-one with the rest of the players around the perimeter! I think this idea that a traditional big cannot be a top player in college nowadays is a knee-jerk reaction to the Nova wins. The fact is Nova was playing with the POY controlling the game and two other projected first round picks (Bridges and DiV.), all with good experience not newbies, plus another 4 good all-around players. That’s what you need to win a championship any year. Remember when we had two first-rounders with good depth? How about when Duke won it’s last championship, do you know how many 3s Okafor took all year? Answer: Zero. How many did Kennedy Meeks take for last year’s champion UNC all year? Answer: Zero. No, to win it’s not necessary to have a big that steps out and hits from the perimeter. It’s college basketball. A dominaring traditional big will do. What’s needed is all-around talent that goes at least 7 deep, balance, chemistry, and experienced leaders... oh, and great coaching and recruiting helps. Give me college Pat any day over any college center in today’s game. Sadly, I'm old enough to remember a lot. As the saying goes, I see a lot more in my rear view mirror than I do out the windshield. I guess the question is what is "a dominating big man" in today's game? Meeks and Oakafor didn't shoot three's because they couldn't. If they could those UNC and Duke teams would have been significantly better. And that's my point. The Nova model emphasizes overall skill and attitude over size. That's why I'm concerned when we Board members start obsessing over our incoming (and existing) bigs height or wing span. Jesse Govan would have been a "dominating big man" years ago but in today's game he has to play defense away from the basket and be able to score off the dribble. So while I'd love to have a college PE I'd also just as soon have a Paschall or Spellman. Or better yet no "dominating big man" but a bunch of DIV's or Bridges. Agree to disagree. Okafor and Meeks show my point that the big doesn't have to be good from the perimeter, just dominate his position. They were both key members of their championship teams. You're projecting NBA ball to college which is not a reasonable comparison. Take, for example, the under-6' guards. They work in college, but not in the NBA (with a few special exceptions). I'm not against a Spellman or Paschall, what I'm against is the argument that the traditional big doesn't work in college. Disagree on Govan, who is too soft to have dominated years ago and today.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Apr 20, 2018 11:05:40 GMT -5
yes the game as changed but in respect to players of the Ewing Era from Olajawon Sampson Bowie and even guys like JB Carrol they could pack it back in the paint and essentially limit penetration back then you also had players at all levels who were well schooled defensively and i'm talking wings and guards lets be very honest here todays players cannot defend and its not just the rules that have been implimented kids today are entirely lacking in basic D skills Its a primary reason why the game as become more wide open. Regarding Patrick and shooting at 15 he couldn't shoot a lick by is senior year at CRL he would stick shot after shot deep in the corner during warmups. Never saw him attempt a shot from more than 10 feet his freshman year until he hit against Nova from about 18 ft sliding out of bound on baseline over the hoop swish. He could shoot Thompson knew he could shoot Patrick knew he could shoot Thompson wouldn't let him. Regarding Govan he couln't have played back in the the old days way too soft with limited inside moves and no defense to speak of. Mike Frazier John Pinone the Big from Syracuse would have eaten him up. Frankly this argument has little merit
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 20, 2018 11:31:57 GMT -5
It's hard to project how a young Patrick Ewing would do in today's game. Keep in mind Ewing grew up in an era where the game was played differently, most notably in that there was no three point line and no shot clock. Under those rules, post play and mid-range shots were a lot more valuable than they are in today's game. Just like some former NBA big men would have little role in today's game, a lot of three-point snipers may very well have struggled in the game as it existed in 1985, especially since defense was allowed to be a lot more physical (this is especially so of the mid-major type guards who shoot a high percentage from 3, but cannot drive/penetrate to get shots at closer range).
The other thing is a Patrick Ewing born in 2000, let's say (that makes me feel old), would grow up in a totally different basketball environment. As others said, Patrick Ewing had a pretty good mid-range shot. If Patrick was developing in today's world, he almost certainly would have toyed with three point shots, and maybe even gotten good at them. A Ewing with three point range would have been pretty deadly.
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,329
|
Post by vv83 on Apr 20, 2018 12:10:32 GMT -5
The Georgetown version of Ewing (before his knees began to go, which started quite early in his Knick career) would dominate basketball in any era. His combination of size, athleticism, strength, and skill was rare. Hall of Fame rare, "unicorn" rare, you could count all the guys with his talent level ever on two hands rare. Add in his intensity and effort - and you have a guy who would be a championship, HOF caliber player in any era.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Apr 20, 2018 12:43:30 GMT -5
The Georgetown version of Ewing (before his knees began to go, which started quite early in his Knick career) would dominate basketball in any era. His combination of size, athleticism, strength, and skill was rare. Hall of Fame rare, "unicorn" rare, you could count all the guys with his talent level ever on two hands rare. Add in his intensity and effort - and you have a guy who would be a championship, HOF caliber player in any era. Sure, but he's no Eric Paschall.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Apr 20, 2018 12:52:46 GMT -5
The Georgetown version of Ewing (before his knees began to go, which started quite early in his Knick career) would dominate basketball in any era. His combination of size, athleticism, strength, and skill was rare. Hall of Fame rare, "unicorn" rare, you could count all the guys with his talent level ever on two hands rare. Add in his intensity and effort - and you have a guy who would be a championship, HOF caliber player in any era. Sure, but he's no Eric Paschall. Exactly. Ewing would have never started at center for Wright. Bill Martin would have, but not Ewing.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaRejuveNation85 on Apr 20, 2018 12:55:31 GMT -5
Eric Paschal over an 18-22 yo Patrick Ewing? Unless it's April Fools Day again and it was made in jest, that is the most ridiculous post I've read on this board. And, by the way, I've seen plenty of PE games, including as a Georgetown and a Knick season ticketholder.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 20, 2018 13:47:23 GMT -5
Eric Paschal over an 18-22 yo Patrick Ewing? Unless it's April Fools Day again and it was made in jest, that is the most ridiculous post I've read on this board. And, by the way, I've seen plenty of PE games, including as a Georgetown and a Knick season ticketholder. Patrick Ewing is one of the 10 best college players ever. Period. People may revisionist history this all they like with what happened as a Knick (top 50 parenthetically) but he was a far more influential college player than Jordan, Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Duncan, Malone, Barkley, Etc, etc He made 3 all tourney teams in 4 years and was one bad pass and one fluke away from 3 titles. Only Walton, Kareem and maybe Sampson were better modern college big men, and Kareem and Walton are not that modern.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Apr 20, 2018 14:14:10 GMT -5
Eric Paschal over an 18-22 yo Patrick Ewing? Unless it's April Fools Day again and it was made in jest, that is the most ridiculous post I've read on this board. And, by the way, I've seen plenty of PE games, including as a Georgetown and a Knick season ticketholder. Patrick Ewing is one of the 10 best college players ever. Period. People may revisionist history this all they like with what happened as a Knick (top 50 parenthetically) but he was a far more influential college player than Jordan, Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Duncan, Malone, Barkley, Etc, etc He made 3 all tourney teams in 4 years and was one bad pass and one fluke away from 3 titles. Only Walton, Kareem and maybe Sampson were better modern college big men, and Kareem and Walton are not that modern. Sure, Pat was the centerpiece of 3 Final Fours in the golden age of college ball, lead the Knicks to 12 straight playoff appearances and one lousy Starks night from an NBA title, and has two Olympic golds. But Erik Paschall was the fifth-best player on a title team in an era where the best players leave early and will star in the German B-league in a year. You have to take Paschall. It's called playing the percentages. It's what good managers do.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Apr 20, 2018 14:55:25 GMT -5
Patrick Ewing is one of the 10 best college players ever. Period. People may revisionist history this all they like with what happened as a Knick (top 50 parenthetically) but he was a far more influential college player than Jordan, Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Duncan, Malone, Barkley, Etc, etc He made 3 all tourney teams in 4 years and was one bad pass and one fluke away from 3 titles. Only Walton, Kareem and maybe Sampson were better modern college big men, and Kareem and Walton are not that modern. Sure, Pat was the centerpiece of 3 Final Fours in the golden age of college ball, lead the Knicks to 12 straight playoff appearances and one lousy Starks night from an NBA title, and has two Olympic golds. But Erik Paschall was the fifth-best player on a title team in an era where the best players leave early and will star in the German B-league in a year. You have to take Paschall. It's called playing the percentages. It's what good managers do. Yep. I'm sure the KenPom numbers can explain why you need a Paschall over Ewing. Think about it, Arizona had the future #1 pick in the draft at center this year....1st round exit. Nova with Paschall.....NCAA champions. Paschall on NOVA's roster (as a redshirt and this year) has more championships than Ewing and Ewing rival and NOVA great Ed Pinckney. The game has changed. I'm not sure if even Alcindor or Walton would even get that many minutes on this year's NOVA team.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 20, 2018 15:08:43 GMT -5
The game has changed. I'm not sure if even Alcindor or Walton would even get that many minutes on this year's NOVA team. Seaweed and I will take some of whatever it is you're smoking... It's got to be good!
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,636
|
Post by DallasHoya on Apr 20, 2018 16:51:53 GMT -5
Eric Paschal over an 18-22 yo Patrick Ewing? Unless it's April Fools Day again and it was made in jest, that is the most ridiculous post I've read on this board. And, by the way, I've seen plenty of PE games, including as a Georgetown and a Knick season ticketholder. Patrick Ewing is one of the 10 best college players ever. Period. People may revisionist history this all they like with what happened as a Knick (top 50 parenthetically) but he was a far more influential college player than Jordan, Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Duncan, Malone, Barkley, Etc, etc He made 3 all tourney teams in 4 years and was one bad pass and one fluke away from 3 titles. Only Walton, Kareem and maybe Sampson were better modern college big men, and Kareem and Walton are not that modern. And Patrick was the starting center in the majority of the 1992 dream team's games, including the gold medal game, which was by far the greatest basketball team ever assembled.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Apr 20, 2018 17:38:49 GMT -5
Sure, Pat was the centerpiece of 3 Final Fours in the golden age of college ball, lead the Knicks to 12 straight playoff appearances and one lousy Starks night from an NBA title, and has two Olympic golds. But Erik Paschall was the fifth-best player on a title team in an era where the best players leave early and will star in the German B-league in a year. You have to take Paschall. It's called playing the percentages. It's what good managers do. Yep. I'm sure the KenPom numbers can explain why you need a Paschall over Ewing. Think about it, Arizona had the future #1 pick in the draft at center this year....1st round exit. Nova with Paschall.....NCAA champions. Paschall on NOVA's roster (as a redshirt and this year) has more championships than Ewing and Ewing rival and NOVA great Ed Pinckney. The game has changed. I'm not sure if even Alcindor or Walton would even get that many minutes on this year's NOVA team. More than the game the rules have changed drastically. So you really can't compare players playing under different rule sets. Freedom of movement rules have changed re game by making it pretty much impossible to play great defense. You have to be able to outscore your opponent in the modern game. Also the concept of the enforcer (goon in hockey) has disappeared thanks to the rules and penalties. At one time ever team had an enforcer whether it be Oakley, Rick give me eyeball Mahorn, Larry mr mean Smith, etc, etc. The game has become a lot softer as more money has become involved. Same thing happened to the NFL and soccer. Would Tom Brady have survived against Reggie Whites eagles, Gibbs Redskins, Howie Longd Raiders or the 46 defense. Probably not.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Apr 20, 2018 20:09:09 GMT -5
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,328
|
Post by tashoya on Apr 20, 2018 21:44:17 GMT -5
Yep. I'm sure the KenPom numbers can explain why you need a Paschall over Ewing. Think about it, Arizona had the future #1 pick in the draft at center this year....1st round exit. Nova with Paschall.....NCAA champions. Paschall on NOVA's roster (as a redshirt and this year) has more championships than Ewing and Ewing rival and NOVA great Ed Pinckney. The game has changed. I'm not sure if even Alcindor or Walton would even get that many minutes on this year's NOVA team. More than the game the rules have changed drastically. So you really can't compare players playing under different rule sets. Freedom of movement rules have changed re game by making it pretty much impossible to play great defense. You have to be able to outscore your opponent in the modern game. Also the concept of the enforcer (goon in hockey) has disappeared thanks to the rules and penalties. At one time ever team had an enforcer whether it be Oakley, Rick give me eyeball Mahorn, Larry mr mean Smith, etc, etc. The game has become a lot softer as more money has become involved. Same thing happened to the NFL and soccer. Would Tom Brady have survived against Reggie Whites eagles, Gibbs Redskins, Howie Longd Raiders or the 46 defense. Probably not. You make good points and also a better case for Patrick. The rule changes make it more difficult for less skilled players to have a place. Pat was never a dirty player and was never the enforcer on his team in the pros. He was a fundamentally sound defender that could use those same tools in today's game.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Apr 21, 2018 12:33:42 GMT -5
More than the game the rules have changed drastically. So you really can't compare players playing under different rule sets. Freedom of movement rules have changed re game by making it pretty much impossible to play great defense. You have to be able to outscore your opponent in the modern game. Also the concept of the enforcer (goon in hockey) has disappeared thanks to the rules and penalties. At one time ever team had an enforcer whether it be Oakley, Rick give me eyeball Mahorn, Larry mr mean Smith, etc, etc. The game has become a lot softer as more money has become involved. Same thing happened to the NFL and soccer. Would Tom Brady have survived against Reggie Whites eagles, Gibbs Redskins, Howie Longd Raiders or the 46 defense. Probably not. You make good points and also a better case for Patrick. The rule changes make it more difficult for less skilled players to have a place. Pat was never a dirty player and was never the enforcer on his team in the pros. He was a fundamentally sound defender that could use those same tools in today's game. Both of you make great points. I think the emphasis of a certain skillset has shifted. A guy who was just a designated 3-pt shooter and nothing more, might be considered "more skilled" today compared to a different era where a guy like Don Reid might be needed to get the rebounds, block-shots, bang in the paint, and nothing more. Ways to speed up the game, score more and has de-emphasized the ability for teams to defend, at least with straight-up man-to-man, on the ball defense. Add the 3-pt shot 's dominance, it stretches defenses to extend and leave in more open space for penetration and drives. The only option is zone, the pack-line defense or just recruit like heck players that can defend in open space (like WVA?). Much easier said than done.
|
|
|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Apr 21, 2018 13:52:21 GMT -5
The game has changed. I'm not sure if even Alcindor or Walton would even get that many minutes on this year's NOVA team. Seaweed and I will take some of whatever it is you're smoking... It's got to be good! Me too...and I don't even smoke.
|
|