DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,634
|
Post by DallasHoya on May 23, 2021 9:25:45 GMT -5
As much as I enjoyed it when Wahab played well (beating nova in the BET)....he more than any other Hoya frustrated the heck out of me. He was so darn robotic on offense that he often made easy plays much more difficult when right under the basket. The offensive flow would come to a halt at times and we’ve his poor passing has been well documented. He also had such an old school/back to the basket game when the rest of the team played up tempo. Yes, would he have been the best big in the BE next year....likely....but is that really saying much? Thank you. Robotic is the word I’ve been trying to think of to describe Wahad’s game for the past two years. As fluid as Pickett’s game could be at times, Wahab’s was the polar opposite.
|
|
smokeyjack
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,300
|
Post by smokeyjack on May 23, 2021 9:39:15 GMT -5
This is just another example of your negatively slanted posts. Nate Watson? Please. Fact: Watson was 2nd Team All BE; Wahab was not even honorable mention. No slant. I’m just being objective here to the extremely ridiculous comment that Wahab was head and shoulders the best center in the conference. Clearly the league’s coaches didn’t feel that way. I liked Wahab a lot, and I think his ceiling was very high. I was looking forward to a big junior year. He made great strides but still wasn’t a finished product yet. Now that is some very funny shxt. Get used gojeff Wahab was a very useful piece but was a minus defender and extremely inefficient on the offensive end - from his wretched passing to his very poor finishing at the rim. Due to Pat's rather predictable obsession with bigs, his usage was way, way higher than his proficiency merited. That usage made his stats artificially inflated. I will literally bet my kids his numbers will go down this season, because nobody will feature him as much as Pat...it's bad basketball to trade 2s for 3s. I would also have guaranteed that Bates would have posted similar numbers to Q's last season had he transferred to GU. And his likely greater efficiency and defensive superiority would have made GU a much tougher matchup than we are going to be as presently constructed with no proven rebounder or + defender down low. We have a HUGE hole at that spot. HUGE. Ig is a project. And Wilson shouldn't even be on the roster IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2021 9:58:09 GMT -5
Arguing that Ewing's been a failure of a big man coach is like arguing that it was his fault that the '86 Knicks weren't any good.
Don't mind the Pat Cummings, Rory Sparrow, Trent Tucker, and Louis Orr over here... or the roster gutting, team defections, or bi-annual youth movements (or Louis Orr) over there... let's complain about the best part of our lineup.
Pat's competency as the head of this program can be questioned (tho my complete verdict is, to date, an INC), but we're honestly nitpicking the current stretch of: Govan (2yr) > Omer > Qudus?
Is it Pat's job to get more than double-double production out of them? To let Jessie go from "delayed break, top-of-key 3ptr" to "nearly 5 threes a game" center? To have Omer be a Kareem finalist in a year with ridiculous chaos and many weeks missed to injury? To prepare Qudus to be the focus of another gutted squad, and have him produce nearly 13 & 8 on 60% from the field (w/ almost certain future national accolades... sigh)?
Are there holes in their games still? Sure. But only the most overeager, inside-the-Hoya-silo, Ewing critics would ever bother insinuating that another promising center candidate shouldn't come to GU b/c of Pat's inability there.
When you're arguing that the most productive & most efficient players on your team are an issue, perhaps that's not the biggest issue.
If you want to tell me that maybe they shouldn't be, it's really a different (and totally arguable) conversation. But also - revisit the '86 Knicks roster and tell me in which direction he should have pivoted.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 23, 2021 10:56:55 GMT -5
As much as I enjoyed it when Wahab played well (beating nova in the BET)....he more than any other Hoya frustrated the heck out of me. He was so darn robotic on offense that he often made easy plays much more difficult when right under the basket. The offensive flow would come to a halt at times and we’ve his poor passing has been well documented. He also had such an old school/back to the basket game when the rest of the team played up tempo. Yes, would he have been the best big in the BE next year....likely....but is that really saying much? Clearly Wahab had his weaknesses, but he was a very good player for us, and basically the only guy on the team that efficiently shot twos. I think the weaknesses you reference are all valid, my biggest concern is that for all his weaknesses, on paper, we don't have anybody of equal or better talent. Bates would have filled that role, but it looks like that's not happening. So, barring picking up someone else similar to Bates, if Ewing plays a traditional center next year, it'll almost certainly be someone weaker than Wahab. And, that's a problem for a team trying to improve on last season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2021 10:59:21 GMT -5
Kids transfer for a number of reasons but if your going to comment that Ewing can’t develop bigs how is Q’s development not relevant? Anybody that watched this kid in hs knows he’s come a long way in a short period of time. @baselayertee don’t you think that has more to do with one player being a Soph and the other being a Senior more so then one player being better than the other? Yea I totally agree with you there. Wahab was not a finished product yet, and I think his ceiling certainly was higher than Watson. But I believe the comment I was replying to was that Wahab was "head and shoulders" the best center in the league by a "wide margin". I just think that was a pretty Hoya-biased take, when I'd argue Watson had the better season last year, albeit as a Senior. Sophomore Wahab vs Sophomore Watson the edge clearly goes to Wahab. Gotcha, definitely not head and shoulders, but if you look at the numbers you could argue Wahab had a better year. Their offensive numbers are quite similar but on defense Wahab is giving you more rebounds, blocks, and overall rim protection in 5 less minutes per game. His rebounding percentage is 4 percentage points higher(25%) and his block percentage is almost double. Watson has the edge in turnover margin and a higher ppg but the latter is mostly due to the fact he had more opportunities as their percentages are basically the same. Both guys struggle to defend in space. Where Watson dominates is in the fact that he rarely turns it over and that’s the main reason his PER is higher. Either way it’s close and you could make an argument for either player imo.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,336
|
Post by SDHoya on May 23, 2021 11:28:36 GMT -5
It’s fair to argue over whether Q was the best or second best center in the BE last season. But either way, it’s pretty compelling evidence that Ewing does, in fact, “develop bigs”.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on May 23, 2021 13:13:25 GMT -5
As much as I enjoyed it when Wahab played well (beating nova in the BET)....he more than any other Hoya frustrated the heck out of me. He was so darn robotic on offense that he often made easy plays much more difficult when right under the basket. The offensive flow would come to a halt at times and we’ve his poor passing has been well documented. He also had such an old school/back to the basket game when the rest of the team played up tempo. Yes, would he have been the best big in the BE next year....likely....but is that really saying much? Clearly Wahab had his weaknesses, but he was a very good player for us, and basically the only guy on the team that efficiently shot twos. I think the weaknesses you reference are all valid, my biggest concern is that for all his weaknesses, on paper, we don't have anybody of equal or better talent. Bates would have filled that role, but it looks like that's not happening. So, barring picking up someone else similar to Bates, if Ewing plays a traditional center next year, it'll almost certainly be someone weaker than Wahab. And, that's a problem for a team trying to improve on last season. You make some good points, however, when Q was here all you did was criticize him and call him a dinosaur who couldn't pass or shoot 3s and wasn't equipped for the modern game. In essence you wanted someone like Tre King who we now have. So if we are to be consistent I don't see how concerns for Q have much merit.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 29, 2021 13:25:06 GMT -5
Clearly Wahab had his weaknesses, but he was a very good player for us, and basically the only guy on the team that efficiently shot twos. I think the weaknesses you reference are all valid, my biggest concern is that for all his weaknesses, on paper, we don't have anybody of equal or better talent. Bates would have filled that role, but it looks like that's not happening. So, barring picking up someone else similar to Bates, if Ewing plays a traditional center next year, it'll almost certainly be someone weaker than Wahab. And, that's a problem for a team trying to improve on last season. You make some good points, however, when Q was here all you did was criticize him and call him a dinosaur who couldn't pass or shoot 3s and wasn't equipped for the modern game. In essence you wanted someone like Tre King who we now have. So if we are to be consistent I don't see how concerns for Q have much merit. I think there is confusion here. Saying "all you did here was criticize him and call him a dinosaur who couldn't pass or shoot 3s and wasn't the modern game" is just not true. Go back and look at my posts, even during the NCAA run, I was praising him. Wahab was clearly the best center we had. I have criticized a system in which we seem to emphasize recruitment of old-style bigs to the exclusion of more modern-style bigs, and to the extent Wahab is an older style big, I can see what you mean. However, I always acknowledged that there was room for players like him in college (even if not in the NBA) as long as they were efficient, and Wahab was efficient. Also, my other criticism was HOW we used our bigs - i.e., posting them up. That, with any player, is a really bad idea unless we have 5 star talent that is super efficient. But, if Ewing is going to stick with a strategy of using old-style bigs, then you want somebody as good as Wahab (or better). I do like the pickup of Tre King, but it remains to be seen whether Ewing will play him as a center (and if he does, will be put in a position to shoot 3's? Coming in, Yurtseven had better numbers than King and yet didn't really shoot threes), rather than as a 4, and it also remains to be seen how he will adjust to higher level play in the Big East. His O rating was only 100.3 at Eastern Kentucky, so while he shot more threes than Wahab (who basically shot none), he didn't shoot twos as well as Wahab. If King is basically parked at the 4, and Ighoefe is our center, then getting King really isn't a signal of a different type of player. I have a sense Ewing views King as a replacement more for Bile than Wahab.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on May 30, 2021 10:01:53 GMT -5
You make some good points, however, when Q was here all you did was criticize him and call him a dinosaur who couldn't pass or shoot 3s and wasn't equipped for the modern game. In essence you wanted someone like Tre King who we now have. So if we are to be consistent I don't see how concerns for Q have much merit. I think there is confusion here. Saying "all you did here was criticize him and call him a dinosaur who couldn't pass or shoot 3s and wasn't the modern game" is just not true. Go back and look at my posts, even during the NCAA run, I was praising him. Wahab was clearly the best center we had. I have criticized a system in which we seem to emphasize recruitment of old-style bigs to the exclusion of more modern-style bigs, and to the extent Wahab is an older style big, I can see what you mean. However, I always acknowledged that there was room for players like him in college (even if not in the NBA) as long as they were efficient, and Wahab was efficient. Also, my other criticism was HOW we used our bigs - i.e., posting them up. That, with any player, is a really bad idea unless we have 5 star talent that is super efficient. But, if Ewing is going to stick with a strategy of using old-style bigs, then you want somebody as good as Wahab (or better). I do like the pickup of Tre King, but it remains to be seen whether Ewing will play him as a center (and if he does, will be put in a position to shoot 3's? Coming in, Yurtseven had better numbers than King and yet didn't really shoot threes), rather than as a 4, and it also remains to be seen how he will adjust to higher level play in the Big East. His O rating was only 100.3 at Eastern Kentucky, so while he shot more threes than Wahab (who basically shot none), he didn't shoot twos as well as Wahab. If King is basically parked at the 4, and Ighoefe is our center, then getting King really isn't a signal of a different type of player. I have a sense Ewing views King as a replacement more for Bile than Wahab. Bile and King are different types of players. King is 6-9 225 and played center at Eastern Kentucky. Every other player on that team was 6-7 or shorter (besides the 6-10 backup center) so King played small ball 5 all of last season. He's a big who plays the 4-5. Bile is 6-7 195. Much smaller but could play 2-3-4 and sometimes small ball 5 against a shorter center. He's more a wing. And really in line ups that had Jamorko and Bile out there, 6-9 Jamorko was the power forward who was tasked with guarding power forwards like Mamu. Barring any new additions like Bates, I expect Big Tim to get the token 5 minute start and then Tre King to play starting center and occasional power forward in line ups that involve Big Tim/Mutombo.
|
|
swhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by swhoya on May 31, 2021 9:36:58 GMT -5
I think there is confusion here. Saying "all you did here was criticize him and call him a dinosaur who couldn't pass or shoot 3s and wasn't the modern game" is just not true. Go back and look at my posts, even during the NCAA run, I was praising him. Wahab was clearly the best center we had. I have criticized a system in which we seem to emphasize recruitment of old-style bigs to the exclusion of more modern-style bigs, and to the extent Wahab is an older style big, I can see what you mean. However, I always acknowledged that there was room for players like him in college (even if not in the NBA) as long as they were efficient, and Wahab was efficient. Also, my other criticism was HOW we used our bigs - i.e., posting them up. That, with any player, is a really bad idea unless we have 5 star talent that is super efficient. But, if Ewing is going to stick with a strategy of using old-style bigs, then you want somebody as good as Wahab (or better). I do like the pickup of Tre King, but it remains to be seen whether Ewing will play him as a center (and if he does, will be put in a position to shoot 3's? Coming in, Yurtseven had better numbers than King and yet didn't really shoot threes), rather than as a 4, and it also remains to be seen how he will adjust to higher level play in the Big East. His O rating was only 100.3 at Eastern Kentucky, so while he shot more threes than Wahab (who basically shot none), he didn't shoot twos as well as Wahab. If King is basically parked at the 4, and Ighoefe is our center, then getting King really isn't a signal of a different type of player. I have a sense Ewing views King as a replacement more for Bile than Wahab. Bile and King are different types of players. King is 6-9 225 and played center at Eastern Kentucky. Every other player on that team was 6-7 or shorter (besides the 6-10 backup center) so King played small ball 5 all of last season. He's a big who plays the 4-5. Bile is 6-7 195. Much smaller but could play 2-3-4 and sometimes small ball 5 against a shorter center. He's more a wing. And really in line ups that had Jamorko and Bile out there, 6-9 Jamorko was the power forward who was tasked with guarding power forwards like Mamu. Barring any new additions like Bates, I expect Big Tim to get the token 5 minute start and then Tre King to play starting center and occasional power forward in line ups that involve Big Tim/Mutombo. I’m probably forgetting an obvious answer, but I don’t recall a player getting a “token” starter position and then getting pulled before they ever start breathing hard, and I don’t think that’s a smart strategy. I really hope (think) Ewing wouldn’t consider doing it. This is big time college basketball. Start your best 5 and don’t put yourself in a hole to start off the game to give someone the token role of starter.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,356
|
Post by SSHoya on May 31, 2021 9:52:43 GMT -5
Bile and King are different types of players. King is 6-9 225 and played center at Eastern Kentucky. Every other player on that team was 6-7 or shorter (besides the 6-10 backup center) so King played small ball 5 all of last season. He's a big who plays the 4-5. Bile is 6-7 195. Much smaller but could play 2-3-4 and sometimes small ball 5 against a shorter center. He's more a wing. And really in line ups that had Jamorko and Bile out there, 6-9 Jamorko was the power forward who was tasked with guarding power forwards like Mamu. Barring any new additions like Bates, I expect Big Tim to get the token 5 minute start and then Tre King to play starting center and occasional power forward in line ups that involve Big Tim/Mutombo. I’m probably forgetting an obvious answer, but I don’t recall a player getting a “token” starter position and then getting pulled before they ever start breathing hard, and I don’t think that’s a smart strategy. I really hope (think) Ewing wouldn’t consider doing it. This is big time college basketball. Start your best 5 and don’t put yourself in a hole to start off the game to give someone the token role of starter. Ben Gillery. And I had totally forgotten that he made the League for a cup of coffee! Benjamin Gillery is a retired American professional basketball player. A 7'0" center from Hutchinson Community College and Georgetown University, Gillery was mainly a "project" player for the Hoyas, starting games but benched during the first stoppage of time. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gillery
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2021 9:58:15 GMT -5
Bile and King are different types of players. King is 6-9 225 and played center at Eastern Kentucky. Every other player on that team was 6-7 or shorter (besides the 6-10 backup center) so King played small ball 5 all of last season. He's a big who plays the 4-5. Bile is 6-7 195. Much smaller but could play 2-3-4 and sometimes small ball 5 against a shorter center. He's more a wing. And really in line ups that had Jamorko and Bile out there, 6-9 Jamorko was the power forward who was tasked with guarding power forwards like Mamu. Barring any new additions like Bates, I expect Big Tim to get the token 5 minute start and then Tre King to play starting center and occasional power forward in line ups that involve Big Tim/Mutombo. I’m probably forgetting an obvious answer, but I don’t recall a player getting a “token” starter position and then getting pulled before they ever start breathing hard, and I don’t think that’s a smart strategy. I really hope (think) Ewing wouldn’t consider doing it. This is big time college basketball. Start your best 5 and don’t put yourself in a hole to start off the game to give someone the token role of starter. That's optimal, sure. But if you've got a big hole in your lineup, sometimes distributing minutes game by game is a necessity. This isn't Ben Gillery we're talking about (ha, sorry SS) - Tim could just be a guy who may get 7 or 8 minutes one game and 25 the next, depending on the situation. In Ewing's first year Mulmore started nearly every game but barely played more than 20+ mpg, sometimes getting in the 10s and occasionally 30+. When it all shook out, bench guys like Jagan & Jahvon (and down the stretch, Trey) played just as much. I'd say that's a fairly decent equivalent of something you could possibly see with Tim as a starter (tho obv less mins b/c he's a C). Sometimes you're just not "best" by very much.
|
|
|
Post by bornhoya on May 31, 2021 10:12:15 GMT -5
I’m probably forgetting an obvious answer, but I don’t recall a player getting a “token” starter position and then getting pulled before they ever start breathing hard, and I don’t think that’s a smart strategy. I really hope (think) Ewing wouldn’t consider doing it. This is big time college basketball. Start your best 5 and don’t put yourself in a hole to start off the game to give someone the token role of starter. That's optimal, sure. But if you've got a big hole in your lineup, sometimes distributing minutes game by game is a necessity. This isn't Ben Gillery we're talking about (ha, sorry SS) - Tim could just be a guy who may get 7 or 8 minutes one game and 25 the next, depending on the situation. In Ewing's first year Mulmore started nearly every game but barely played more than 20+ mpg, sometimes getting in the 10s and occasionally 30+. When it all shook out, bench guys like Jagan & Jahvon (and down the stretch, Trey) played just as much. I'd say that's a fairly decent equivalent of something you could possibly see with Tim as a starter (tho obv less mins b/c he's a C). Sometimes you're just not "best" by very much. Mulmore would get two fouls before the first 5 minutes in the first half
|
|
|
Post by ewingitrust on May 31, 2021 16:22:10 GMT -5
Let's rip this subject lol...all in favor say..
|
|
|
Post by ccoven on May 31, 2021 16:29:27 GMT -5
Let's rip this subject lol...all in favor say.. Say Pascal Fleury
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,350
|
Post by prhoya on Jun 11, 2021 13:14:17 GMT -5
Any news re: Bates?
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Jun 11, 2021 13:25:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lethal_Interjection on May 4, 2022 9:36:18 GMT -5
|
|
dchoya72
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,488
|
Post by dchoya72 on May 4, 2022 9:55:16 GMT -5
He's got good hands, footwork, he can jump high, and has body coordination...all good traits!
|
|
|
Post by trillesthoya on May 4, 2022 10:03:23 GMT -5
I’m guessing it’s Butler since there’s enough smoke for them, but Iowa State boards definitely don’t think it’s them.
|
|