sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 10, 2018 10:34:38 GMT -5
I completely disagree, basic fundamentals should be taught/stressed on the college level.. NBA pro's still work on the fundamentals of the game. sleepy go back to sleep! Fundamentals are part of the game. Sleep probably thinks it's a childish word or something. Clueless. lol Never said not to work on fundamentals. You do it everyday. My point is when you have such a basic lack of fundamentals skills exhibited both offensively and defensively at this level breaking the bad habits is not something you should see continually at this level. Justify for me why anyone at this level should be making a standup whip or sling pass time after time poorly thrown and putting the receiver out of position. never mind that it's good for a turnover at least once a game. Simple things like angles on passes in a fast break or getting the ball to the middle of the floor vs whats become fast break left with a wild dish left the minute we sense or anticipate pressure, or running it at a speed where you out pace your wings.I can go on with how to feed the post, spacing, skip passes etc etc.This is not high level stuff and is taught and stressed at an early age. I've seen too much of it over the last 5 years. Its been a failure to evaluate talent correctly. I'll give Patrick a pass for the time being but the basic skill level needs to be upgraded. And then refined in practice.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jan 10, 2018 10:35:08 GMT -5
Our RPI improved 31 spots with that win. It's finally back under 200 (174). At what point are we allowed to call the Mullin experiment a failure? Not anytime close to now. He inherited a mess and has had some bad breaks. It will be a few years before there can be any meaningful evaluation.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 10, 2018 10:38:58 GMT -5
Those were two pretty darned bad teams playing last night. I think I now unfortunately know what some of the St. John's / DePaul games were like over the past decade. Defensively, I thought our attention to the screens was pretty good, but our rotational awareness was pretty poor. That is, we usually dealt with the initial screen by helping as needed, but often got flummoxed when we had to help the helper. St. John's missed a lot of open threes. Sometimes the difference between a blowout loss (last game) and a close win (this one) is whether your opponent makes them. I think we're best when we either blitz the screen orreally aggressively show before recovering to our man. A hedge or a switch just doesn't work with JG and MD out there. Offensively, we continue to try to feed the post, which I think is really the only consistent option we have. We seem to be instructing MD and JG to invite the double-team and then make the proper pass. I say "seem" because there were several times that they both held the ball in the post an even longer period of time than normal, waiting for it to come. But they don't seem to be improving at making the proper pass out of the double. Neither is a good passer. And, perhaps relatedly, the other guys just seem to be spotting around the perimeter waiting for a pass rather than cutting or moving. I'd rather we moved (except maybe for Blair and Pickett, who are our best spot-up options)/ And all things considered, I'd rather MD and JG tried to attack quickly when they're one-on-one, since that's our best chance to score. Just as with the past few years with III, when we run screen-rolls with our guards, our guards very infrequently use them aggressively to try to get to the hoop. Instead, they're used to initiate the offense. That is, we usually move laterally using the screen, reverse the ball, and the screener (JG or MD) dives to the post. Again, I get it in general, since our guards are pretty darned poor penetrators and it's a good way to get space in the post for an entry. But I'd still rather we tried to use them more aggressively at least some of the time and/or tried to have MD or JG pop every once in a while (as with the one time at the beginning of the second half where we did it for JG). Excellent simple out of bounds stuff in the second-half. We ran the same basic play in the first-half over and over again (not even really trying for an easy shot), and then used the same set but very different action in the second to get some easy looks. Raftery commented on it once when we got the jumper for Jesse. Jagan continues to be our best overall guard because he at least can finish going to the hoop and has proper basketball instincts on both ends. Too many TOs of course (as with everyone). I think for now I'd tell Pickett to just be a spot-up guy after one TO per game. He's pretty good on catch and shoot situations when he has time. Less so when he's on the move. And he's almost impossibly turnover-prone once he puts the ball on the deck. You want to continue to give him freedom and hope he improves. But....once he's had that one bad TO, it's time to tone it down. Great job switching to zone after the ball went out of bounds to create a late-in-shot-clock situation. We did it twice that I remember and it flummoxed them both times. I'd still rather we tried to press more. Raftery mentioned it, noting that you can only do it when you score. And he's right. But we seem to only do it after made foul shots instead of made FGs. I don't think they fully exposed it even once. Even if I'm not remembering an easy layup or two, our half-court D is poor enough, and we are creating enough turnovers, that it's worth it because it generally slows them down. I can't believe we almost fouled the desperation three-point shooter after a pump fake on the final possession. And then, after the rebound, WE DID IT AGAIN.I agree with a lot of these comments, but I actually thought the D on the last possession was good, and Im glad for once, the stupid refs didnt bail out the shooters. IMO, you shouldnt get that call unless it is completely obvious. The game already advantages 3 point shooting too much, and a lot of that is because you cant jump straight up to guard a 3 pt shot without some dumb foul called.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,664
|
Post by seaweed on Jan 10, 2018 10:39:32 GMT -5
Jessie has a great 5-15 foot game this year. Gee, wonder who has been coaching him up on that...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 10:40:12 GMT -5
Our RPI improved 31 spots with that win. It's finally back under 200 (174). At what point are we allowed to call the Mullin experiment a failure? What do you think are realistic expectations for a coach who took over a program 3 years ago that graduated 5 starters and whose best recruit his 1st year was Frederic Mussouni? They finished that year with an RPI close to 250. They were 6-1 before Lovette got hurt with 2 top 100 wins.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 10, 2018 10:42:25 GMT -5
I was, and am still, as much of a skeptic as anyone that this team could do any reasonable damage this year. That being said, according to RPI Wizard, if you reversed the outcomes of the Cuse game (up 13 with 10 min to go) and Butler (up 20 in the 2nd half), this team would be sitting at 14-2 (3-2) with an RPI of 88. How many of us would have signed up for that right now? That's the distance between being in striking distance of the bubble conversation and having no prayer of making the NIT. I'm fairly certain we'll be in the NIT conversation if we finish above .500. While it's far from a sure thing, 6-12 in conference would put us at 16-13 going into the BET. 17 wins probably gets us into the NIT. If not, we should definitely accept a bid to one of those other tournaments, to continue to build toward next year. Not to get us down a rabbit hole (and maybe this deserves its own thread), but here are the profiles of all BE teams that have made the NIT since the conference realigned: 2017: none, no non-NCAA eligible teams 2016: Creighton (20-14, 9-9 BE, RPI: 94, SOS: 75) 2015: none, closest was Seton Hall (16-15, 6-12 BE, RPI: 103, SOS: 75) 2014: St. John's (20-12, 10-8 BE, RPI: 82, SOS: 67) and Georgetown (17-14, 8-10 BE, RPI: 75, SOS: 32) 17 wins got the 2014 team in as one of the final 8 at-larges, but they also played a tough non-conference schedule and got 8 conference wins. This year's team would have neither of those things going for it, so my guess is that it would take something closer to 18-19 wins to have a legitimate chance. However, that's not to say a 16-17 win season this year wouldn't be considered a success.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 10:43:53 GMT -5
Our RPI improved 31 spots with that win. It's finally back under 200 (174). The situation at St John's needs to improve and fairly quickly or it might implode on Coach Mullin. I know he is missing Lovett now and that is a huge loss for them, but they were expected to show some real improvement this year with some of the transfers that had become eligible this year. They have two really tough games coming next and starting 0-7 in conference is not what anyone expected. I have not watched them enough to put my finger on what the problem is with that team, but something seems to be missing. It is a situation the Hoyas need to pay attention to and realize the program needs to keep moving in the right direction every year if you are going to improve your recruiting results. Not sure how many recruits who are considering St John's now are too impressed with this start They have 2 four stars committed and they return all four of their top scorers next year. That's why I really can't blame Pat for stat padding the schedule in his first year. Mullin's lack of success in his first year is already being used against him.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,352
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jan 10, 2018 10:44:44 GMT -5
At what point are we allowed to call the Mullin experiment a failure? Not anytime close to now. He inherited a mess and has had some bad breaks. It will be a few years before there can be any meaningful evaluation. So what's the number of years a coach gets to show progress? Looks to me like a complete failure. Was there anything you saw from St. John's last night to suggest they are a well-coached team?
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,352
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jan 10, 2018 10:45:29 GMT -5
At what point are we allowed to call the Mullin experiment a failure? What do you think are realistic expectations for a coach who took over a program 3 years ago that graduated 5 starters and whose best recruit his 1st year was Frederic Mussouni? They finished that year with an RPI close to 250. They were 6-1 before Lovette got hurt with 2 top 100 wins. NCAA Tournament by Year 3, with all the advantages that St. John's has, is not unreasonable. Mullin stinks as a coach.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Jan 10, 2018 10:45:48 GMT -5
I'm fairly certain we'll be in the NIT conversation if we finish above .500. While it's far from a sure thing, 6-12 in conference would put us at 16-13 going into the BET. 17 wins probably gets us into the NIT. If not, we should definitely accept a bid to one of those other tournaments, to continue to build toward next year. Yeah, not sure why we would be in the category of no prayer of the NIT. Truthfully, we have plenty of oppts left to get good wins. Not saying it will happen, but almost every BE team outside of STJ and DeP is a good win. It sucked to lose to Butler and Cuse the way we did, but beating Marq and Providence at home would likely be as good. I disagree GUJook97 and TrueHoyaBlue. As hoyasaxa2003 has mentioned in the past, the NIT selection standards are now an extension of the NCAA selection standards. So in reality, being being in the bubble conversation means being in the NIT conversation. In 2016 when Marquette had a bad non-conference schedule (326 Non Conf SOS), they ended up 20-13 (8-10 in conference) and didn't make the NIT. Getting to 500 or better is no longer good enough to be in the NIT conversation. Back in December the NCAA selection committee announced a new format for their team sheets this year. Team records are divided into four groups for evaluating teams: RPI Group 1: Home (1-30), Neutral (1-50), Away (1-75) RPI Group 2: Home (31-75), Neutral (51-100), Away (76-135) RPI Group 3: Home (76-160), Neutral (101-200), Away (136-240) RPI Group 4: Home (161-351), Neutral (201-351), Away (241-351) Last night was Georgetown's first Group 1 win of the season. Their record is not 1-4 against Group 1, 0-0 against Group 2, 1-0 against Group 3, and 10-0 against Group 4. Without the Syracuse and Butler wins, it's going to be an uphill battle to get in the postseason conversation.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 10, 2018 10:46:47 GMT -5
Those were two pretty darned bad teams playing last night. I think I now unfortunately know what some of the St. John's / DePaul games were like over the past decade. I can't believe we almost fouled the desperation three-point shooter after a pump fake on the final possession. And then, after the rebound, WE DID IT AGAIN.I agree with a lot of these comments, but I actually thought the D on the last possession was good, and Im glad for once, the stupid refs didnt bail out the shooters. IMO, you shouldnt get that call unless it is completely obvious. The game already advantages 3 point shooting too much, and a lot of that is because you cant jump straight up to guard a 3 pt shot without some dumb foul called. I completely agree that it shouldn't be a foul when a shooter intentionally jumps into an airborne defender. But, unfortunately, it often is. So, in that singular situation -- where there's little time left and they need a three to tie -- you can't risk doing anything that might be called a three-shot foul in my view.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,352
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jan 10, 2018 10:46:50 GMT -5
The situation at St John's needs to improve and fairly quickly or it might implode on Coach Mullin. I know he is missing Lovett now and that is a huge loss for them, but they were expected to show some real improvement this year with some of the transfers that had become eligible this year. They have two really tough games coming next and starting 0-7 in conference is not what anyone expected. I have not watched them enough to put my finger on what the problem is with that team, but something seems to be missing. It is a situation the Hoyas need to pay attention to and realize the program needs to keep moving in the right direction every year if you are going to improve your recruiting results. Not sure how many recruits who are considering St John's now are too impressed with this start They have 2 four stars committed and they return all four of their top scorers next year. That's why I really can't blame Pat for stat padding the schedule in his first year. Mullin's lack of success in his first year is already being used against him. Totally disagree with the last sentence. Mullin gets a pass on his first year. But St. John's hasn't shown progress in years 2 or 3. Will be 3 straight NCAA Tournament misses without a lot of hope on the horizon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 10:46:51 GMT -5
What do you think are realistic expectations for a coach who took over a program 3 years ago that graduated 5 starters and whose best recruit his 1st year was Frederic Mussouni? They finished that year with an RPI close to 250. They were 6-1 before Lovette got hurt with 2 top 100 wins. NCAA Tournament by Year 3, with all the advantages that St. John's has, is not unreasonable. Mullin stinks as a coach. That's unrealistic considering what he inherited and factoring in he's played 10 of 17 games without his second best player...
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,352
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jan 10, 2018 10:48:36 GMT -5
NCAA Tournament by Year 3, with all the advantages that St. John's has, is not unreasonable. Mullin stinks as a coach. That's unrealistic considering what he inherited and factoring in he's played 10 of 17 games without his second best player... Excuses are like *-holes...
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Jan 10, 2018 10:56:27 GMT -5
Our RPI improved 31 spots with that win. It's finally back under 200 (174). At what point are we allowed to call the Mullin experiment a failure? Not even close to calling it an experiment or a failure. No team in the BIG EAST outside of maybe Xavier and Villanova would win games in this conference without their 2nd best player...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 10:57:17 GMT -5
They have 2 four stars committed and they return all four of their top scorers next year. That's why I really can't blame Pat for stat padding the schedule in his first year. Mullin's lack of success in his first year is already being used against him. Totally disagree with the last sentence. Mullin gets a pass on his first year. But St. John's hasn't shown progress in years 2 or 3. Will be 3 straight NCAA Tournament misses without a lot of hope on the horizon. You're not really giving him a pass on his first year though. Anyways they won 8 games in his first year and their rpi was close to 250. It's 71 now with their second best player missing 10 of 17 games... That's not considered improvement?
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,352
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jan 10, 2018 10:59:43 GMT -5
Totally disagree with the last sentence. Mullin gets a pass on his first year. But St. John's hasn't shown progress in years 2 or 3. Will be 3 straight NCAA Tournament misses without a lot of hope on the horizon. You're not really giving him a pass on his first year though. Anyways they won 8 games in his first year and their rpi was close to 250. It's 71 now with their second best player missing 10 of 17 games... That's not considered improvement? Sure, it's improvement, but it's still bad. You can trot out 71 in the RPI, which isn't good for a high major team (of which there are less than 100 in the country)...but the reality is they are 0-5 in the Big East in year 3 of Mullin's regime. They play an ugly, disorganized style of basketball and look lost on the court. They have some talent, but don't have substantially more coming in after this season. I ask again: what evidence did you see last night to suggest that St. John's is a well-coached team?
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,352
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jan 10, 2018 11:08:59 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 11:11:54 GMT -5
You're not really giving him a pass on his first year though. Anyways they won 8 games in his first year and their rpi was close to 250. It's 71 now with their second best player missing 10 of 17 games... That's not considered improvement? Sure, it's improvement, but it's still bad. You can trot out 71 in the RPI, which isn't good for a high major team (of which there are less than 100 in the country)...but the reality is they are 0-5 in the Big East in year 3 of Mullin's regime. They play an ugly, disorganized style of basketball and look lost on the court. They have some talent, but don't have substantially more coming in after this season. I ask again: what evidence did you see last night to suggest that St. John's is a well-coached team? When did you ask the first time? They have improved just not at the speed you believe to be adequate but they're closer to being a factor than you're giving them credit for imo...
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jan 10, 2018 11:14:42 GMT -5
Not anytime close to now. He inherited a mess and has had some bad breaks. It will be a few years before there can be any meaningful evaluation. So what's the number of years a coach gets to show progress? Looks to me like a complete failure. Was there anything you saw from St. John's last night to suggest they are a well-coached team? I think you really need at least five to six years usually to provide a decent evaluation, and more like eight to ten years to truly know what you have in a coach. Also, the idea that if there is not linear progression then something is wrong is absurd. A coach can be doing a great job, and, for instance, have a nice second year, solid third year, and then an awful fourth year. That does not mean that suddenly your coach is incompetent or a failure. It does not always work out in a nice and neat fashion. SJU ran some nice designed plays last night and played tough defense consistently. They just do not have much offensive firepower without Lovett, and Ponds was hurt.
|
|