Georgetown - Villanova 1/17/18 Discussion

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2018 8:20:36 GMT -5 bostonfan said:

On the defensive end the lack of explosive athletes on Georgetown was exploited all night as Nova moved the ball quickly searching open shots. The Hoyas were working hard and trying to make the correct rotations, but what you need to slow down Nova when they are moving the ball like that are more athletes that can aggressively contest not only every shot, but every pass, to disrupt them and make it hard for Nova to get to the shots they want. The Hoyas seemed to be one step too slow all night and Nova made them pay for that on almost every opportunity

Hopefully the staff is recruiting players that are athletic/quick enough to play at the faster pace offensively and compete better on the defensive end. It seems like some of the commits they have for next year are that type of player, along with some of the guys they are targeting. Until those players arrive the Hoyas are going to struggle against teams like Nova

Agree. The athleticism gap last night was so evident. There was a play in the second half where Marcus got the ball 3 feet from the hoop and should have had an easy layup/dunk. But by the time he gathered himself to jump, Paschall (I think) was already airborne waiting to swat the attempt away.

Jessie's the same way. When he has the time/space to gather himself, he can be really good (see: against our weak non-conference schedule). Last night, everything he did in the post was a half-step slower than the guys guarding him.

[GUJook97]

Yeah, Im not going to overreact to that game. I was there, and that is just a really good team. They would likely beat 95% of the teams in America on the road. They had us throttled every where, and we played a pace that enabled them run up the score. Plus, they had a good night shooting.

There are still several winnable games this season. The way Govan talked after the game last night was encouraging. You can tell that Ewing has made them believe in realistic goals for this season. Winning home games against teams like SJU is a goal.

[ColumbiaHeightsHoya]

Jan 18, 2018 8:59:52 GMT -5 GUJook97 said:

Yeah, Im not going to overreact to that game. I was there, and that is just a really good team. They would likely beat 95% of the teams in America on the road. They had us throttled every where, and we played a pace that enabled them run up the score. Plus, they had a good night shooting.

There are still several winnable games this season.

Outside of the next two, what other winnable games do you see? Possibly Provy at home & Marquette at home. Outside of that I am not seeing it.

[GUJook97]

Jan 18, 2018 9:04:38 GMT -5 ColumbiaHeightsHoya said:

Jan 18, 2018 8:59:52 GMT -5 GUJook97 said:

Yeah, Im not going to overreact to that game. I was there, and that is just a really good team. They would likely beat 95% of the teams in America on the road. They had us throttled every where, and we played a pace that enabled them run up the score. Plus, they had a good night shooting.

There are still several winnable games this season.

Outside of the next two, what other winnable games do you see? Possibly Provy at home & Marquette at home. Outside of that I am not seeing it.

That's 4 games right there. We could beat Seton Hall at home. And, we can beat Providence on the road, too. They've had some real clunkers. Im not saying we are going to win 6 more BE games, but Im still not sure what team we really have. There is a team in there that should have beat Butler.

[fanofdeke]

Jan 18, 2018 9:07:14 GMT -5 GUJook97 said:

Jan 18, 2018 9:04:38 GMT -5 ColumbiaHeightsHoya said:

Outside of the next two, what other winnable games do you see? Possibly Provy at home & Marquette at home. Outside of that I am not seeing it.

That's 4 games right there. We could beat Seton Hall at home. And, we can beat Providence on the road, too. They've had some real clunkers. Im not saying we are going to win 6 more BE games, but Im still not sure what team we really have. There is a team in there that should have beat Butler.

The Dunk is like kryptonite for us, though.  In recent memory, I have not seen us ever look good there.

[glidehoyas (Inactive)]

I truly believe in this. Man, I love the Hoyas, and I know ya'll do as well. "You learn more from losing than winning. You learn how to keep going." - Morgan Wootten


"To be successful in coaching you have to treat your team like a family. The leader needs backing from everyone." - Morgan Wootten


"It's often been said that you learn more from losing than you do from winning. I think, if you're wise, you learn from both. You learn a lot from a loss. You learn what is it that we're not doing to get to where we want to go. It really gets your attention and it really motivates the work ethic of your team when you're not doing well." - Morgan Wootten

And finally. "Don't give up. Don't ever give up." - Jim Valvano

[dense]

Jan 18, 2018 9:14:18 GMT -5 fanofdeke said:

Jan 18, 2018 9:07:14 GMT -5 GUJook97 said:

That's 4 games right there. We could beat Seton Hall at home. And, we can beat Providence on the road, too. They've had some real clunkers. Im not saying we are going to win 6 more BE games, but Im still not sure what team we really have. There is a team in there that should have beat Butler.

The Dunk is like kryptonite for us, though.  In recent memory, I have not seen us ever look good there.

Providence plays 2-3 zone almost exclusively... the way we shoot, it might be a 45-38 final

[saxagael]

Jan 18, 2018 0:43:22 GMT -5 jamaicahoya said:

Sorry. Delete the previous obvious mistake posts. The perils of drinking to find hope in a deeping depressing situation with our beloved Hoyas. Yet it is in this state of mind that I can clearly see the logic in why the Hoyas took care of St. John, St. John put a scare in Nova, and Nova abusing us.

The short answer is different game different night. But, the post game comments from Wright and Brunson of Villanova nailed it, they were saying their defense hadn't been clicking and working the way they wanted until they faced Georgetown. It takes times for players working with each other to see how things are supposed to work and time for players shift from habits they have had for years to what the coach wants them to do (and they believe it can work). Against Georgetown that clicked. Good for Villanova and bad for Georgetown.

[saxagael]

Jan 18, 2018 8:12:14 GMT -5 hoyazeke said:

Jan 17, 2018 22:57:08 GMT -5 saxagael said:

Yep, that is doable and it seems Patrick has been making the rounds for 2019 and beyond. Patrick is making himself present and last year had the sad end of summer picking up recruiting scraps. Most guards have a good idea what their top 5 are and have been chatting with programs by their high school soph year, bigger players (wings and bigs) it can take longer to see how their games develop for top 100 players.

I agree on McClung. I've liked the improvement Juggy has made, but he still has a ways to go. I don't know who is working with the guards and helping them grow as guards. During JTIII years shooters and guards didn't really progress much. Most shooters lost their shot, which really was confounding. It is good to see players improve during the year, which is a really nice change. It would be great to see players make good leaps, like they do at Villanova, Butler, and Creighton during their college years. (I don't know how much ceiling McClung has).

Gael it's not accurate to say during the III area shooters didn't progress. It's really just Ike and Reg that didn't progress. There are more cases of shooters improving (Otto, Brilly, LJ, Jeff, PE2)

The list of those who didn't progress and regressed is a lot longer than this. But, there were some who improved or kept their skill. Seeing players who shoot well coming in and in two years have a tough time making wide open shots, is really odd, particularly when there are more than two a season loosing the capability. In most programs players improve over time not regress. It is something that really had me stumped with JTIII (who I mostly liked as a coach and person).

With college programs there are programs where players come in and learn a system that high lights their skills and they move up and out and they attract one-and-done players, other programs draw really good players and grow their games as well as build a team that works well together (a large chunk of the regular NCAA returning teams) with Villanova now a standout for guards, and another has a system that is built on winning as a team and program and not many if any move on. Under JTIII Georgetown fit between the last two approaches where the position where they grew players best was sort of a point forward (passing and playmaking forward position - Porter and Green). Having players like Ike, Domingo (his shot really got messed up, which was mostly his feet and hips angled too far from the basket and feet too tight so he didn't have a good foundation for his shot - his shot would nearly always go if feet and hips were solid, which is something a coach with basic shooting mechanics would catch and help correct). Lubick had a decent shot his first two years, but his crazy hitch in his shot got worse and his shot got a lot more motion in it making is slower and less consistent. Ike went from a solid shot with decent mechanics to flinging it. Otto came in with really good mechanics and left with it intact. Peak had long stretches where is distance shot was not going and he shied away from taking it as much. Reggie Cameron came in a really good 3 shooter, but slow getting up and down the court, his shot fell off his junior year while his defense improved (it was non-existant), but his shot came back his senior year (he seemed to talk to Jon Wallace a lot, which I'm guessing is what helped).

[hoyalove4ever]

We played poorly. They played, and shot, very, very well. They are extremely good, and we are not. The real question is how we will respond on Saturday versus SJU.

[hoyazeke]

Jan 18, 2018 10:30:05 GMT -5 saxagael said:

Jan 18, 2018 8:12:14 GMT -5 hoyazeke said:

Gael it's not accurate to say during the III area shooters didn't progress. It's really just Ike and Reg that didn't progress. There are more cases of shooters improving (Otto, Brilly, LJ, Jeff, PE2)

The list of those who didn't progress and regressed is a lot longer than this. But, there were some who improved or kept their skill. Seeing players who shoot well coming in and in two years have a tough time making wide open shots, is really odd, particularly when there are more than two a season loosing the capability. In most programs players improve over time not regress. It is something that really had me stumped with JTIII (who I mostly liked as a coach and person).

With college programs there are programs where players come in and learn a system that high lights their skills and they move up and out and they attract one-and-done players, other programs draw really good players and grow their games as well as build a team that works well together (a large chunk of the regular NCAA returning teams) with Villanova now a standout for guards, and another has a system that is built on winning as a team and program and not many if any move on. Under JTIII Georgetown fit between the last two approaches where the position where they grew players best was sort of a point forward (passing and playmaking forward position - Porter and Green). Having players like Ike, Domingo (his shot really got messed up, which was mostly his feet and hips angled too far from the basket and feet too tight so he didn't have a good foundation for his shot - his shot would nearly always go if feet and hips were solid, which is something a coach with basic shooting mechanics would catch and help correct). Lubick had a decent shot his first two years, but his crazy hitch in his shot got worse and his shot got a lot more motion in it making is slower and less consistent. Ike went from a solid shot with decent mechanics to flinging it. Otto came in with really good mechanics and left with it intact. Peak had long stretches where is distance shot was not going and he shied away from taking it as much. Reggie Cameron came in a really good 3 shooter, but slow getting up and down the court, his shot fell off his junior year while his defense improved (it was non-existant), but his shot came back his senior year (he seemed to talk to Jon Wallace a lot, which I'm guessing is what helped).

I completely forgot about Domingo but for every Lubick(soso shot that regressed) I can give you a CWright or Kel whoses shot got better. I think III needed to be replaced but I think he did a good job of coaching up kids that wanted to be coached.....

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2018 11:03:46 GMT -5 hoyazeke said:

Jan 18, 2018 10:30:05 GMT -5 saxagael said:

The list of those who didn't progress and regressed is a lot longer than this. But, there were some who improved or kept their skill. Seeing players who shoot well coming in and in two years have a tough time making wide open shots, is really odd, particularly when there are more than two a season loosing the capability. In most programs players improve over time not regress. It is something that really had me stumped with JTIII (who I mostly liked as a coach and person).

With college programs there are programs where players come in and learn a system that high lights their skills and they move up and out and they attract one-and-done players, other programs draw really good players and grow their games as well as build a team that works well together (a large chunk of the regular NCAA returning teams) with Villanova now a standout for guards, and another has a system that is built on winning as a team and program and not many if any move on. Under JTIII Georgetown fit between the last two approaches where the position where they grew players best was sort of a point forward (passing and playmaking forward position - Porter and Green). Having players like Ike, Domingo (his shot really got messed up, which was mostly his feet and hips angled too far from the basket and feet too tight so he didn't have a good foundation for his shot - his shot would nearly always go if feet and hips were solid, which is something a coach with basic shooting mechanics would catch and help correct). Lubick had a decent shot his first two years, but his crazy hitch in his shot got worse and his shot got a lot more motion in it making is slower and less consistent. Ike went from a solid shot with decent mechanics to flinging it. Otto came in with really good mechanics and left with it intact. Peak had long stretches where is distance shot was not going and he shied away from taking it as much. Reggie Cameron came in a really good 3 shooter, but slow getting up and down the court, his shot fell off his junior year while his defense improved (it was non-existant), but his shot came back his senior year (he seemed to talk to Jon Wallace a lot, which I'm guessing is what helped).

I completely forgot about Domingo but for every Lubick(soso shot that regressed) I can give you a CWright or Kel whoses shot got better. I think III needed to be replaced but I think he did a good job of coaching up kids that wanted to be coached.....

The key lies in your last sentence: recruiting an entire roster of kids who want to be coached.

[saxagael]

Jan 18, 2018 11:03:46 GMT -5 hoyazeke said:

Jan 18, 2018 10:30:05 GMT -5 saxagael said:

The list of those who didn't progress and regressed is a lot longer than this. But, there were some who improved or kept their skill. Seeing players who shoot well coming in and in two years have a tough time making wide open shots, is really odd, particularly when there are more than two a season loosing the capability. In most programs players improve over time not regress. It is something that really had me stumped with JTIII (who I mostly liked as a coach and person).

With college programs there are programs where players come in and learn a system that high lights their skills and they move up and out and they attract one-and-done players, other programs draw really good players and grow their games as well as build a team that works well together (a large chunk of the regular NCAA returning teams) with Villanova now a standout for guards, and another has a system that is built on winning as a team and program and not many if any move on. Under JTIII Georgetown fit between the last two approaches where the position where they grew players best was sort of a point forward (passing and playmaking forward position - Porter and Green). Having players like Ike, Domingo (his shot really got messed up, which was mostly his feet and hips angled too far from the basket and feet too tight so he didn't have a good foundation for his shot - his shot would nearly always go if feet and hips were solid, which is something a coach with basic shooting mechanics would catch and help correct). Lubick had a decent shot his first two years, but his crazy hitch in his shot got worse and his shot got a lot more motion in it making is slower and less consistent. Ike went from a solid shot with decent mechanics to flinging it. Otto came in with really good mechanics and left with it intact. Peak had long stretches where is distance shot was not going and he shied away from taking it as much. Reggie Cameron came in a really good 3 shooter, but slow getting up and down the court, his shot fell off his junior year while his defense improved (it was non-existant), but his shot came back his senior year (he seemed to talk to Jon Wallace a lot, which I'm guessing is what helped).

I completely forgot about Domingo but for every Lubick(soso shot that regressed) I can give you a CWright or Kel whoses shot got better. I think III needed to be replaced but I think he did a good job of coaching up kids that wanted to be coached.....

Most top programs don’t have many players where skills regress, which is why this stood out and was puzzling. Georgetown coaches have done great jobs on many fronts (particularly developing great young men who Georgetown alums can be proud of). There are a few shooting coaches who are Hoya alums apwho work with other college players and pros (along with a handful of high school players) but only seem to work with Georgetown players when the are preparing for the combine for NBA draft. I’ve asked about Hoya players shots that could use help and they see they same things and more, but they haven’t worked with them. I’m hoping this changes as there is a lot of great Hoya family experience and skills soaching out there to be tapped.

[professorhoya]

Jan 18, 2018 11:03:46 GMT -5 hoyazeke said:

Jan 18, 2018 10:30:05 GMT -5 saxagael said:

The list of those who didn't progress and regressed is a lot longer than this. But, there were some who improved or kept their skill. Seeing players who shoot well coming in and in two years have a tough time making wide open shots, is really odd, particularly when there are more than two a season loosing the capability. In most programs players improve over time not regress. It is something that really had me stumped with JTIII (who I mostly liked as a coach and person).

With college programs there are programs where players come in and learn a system that high lights their skills and they move up and out and they attract one-and-done players, other programs draw really good players and grow their games as well as build a team that works well together (a large chunk of the regular NCAA returning teams) with Villanova now a standout for guards, and another has a system that is built on winning as a team and program and not many if any move on. Under JTIII Georgetown fit between the last two approaches where the position where they grew players best was sort of a point forward (passing and playmaking forward position - Porter and Green). Having players like Ike, Domingo (his shot really got messed up, which was mostly his feet and hips angled too far from the basket and feet too tight so he didn't have a good foundation for his shot - his shot would nearly always go if feet and hips were solid, which is something a coach with basic shooting mechanics would catch and help correct). Lubick had a decent shot his first two years, but his crazy hitch in his shot got worse and his shot got a lot more motion in it making is slower and less consistent. Ike went from a solid shot with decent mechanics to flinging it. Otto came in with really good mechanics and left with it intact. Peak had long stretches where is distance shot was not going and he shied away from taking it as much. Reggie Cameron came in a really good 3 shooter, but slow getting up and down the court, his shot fell off his junior year while his defense improved (it was non-existant), but his shot came back his senior year (he seemed to talk to Jon Wallace a lot, which I'm guessing is what helped).

I completely forgot about Domingo but for every Lubick(soso shot that regressed) I can give you a CWright or Kel whoses shot got better. I think III needed to be replaced but I think he did a good job of coaching up kids that wanted to be coached.....

Who can forget Jeremiah Rivers. That guy could not shoot . He spent a whole summer with dad's money hiring a shooting coach and shoooting 10,000 shots only to come back and shoot bricks and air balls.

For some reason III could not identify who had good mechanics or could shoot because Lubbick and Rivers had flawed form and Cameron had a slow release.

I think bringing in Wallace has helped improve mulmore, Kaleb and Jagan arc.

[hoyazeke]

Jan 18, 2018 12:27:50 GMT -5 professorhoya said:

Jan 18, 2018 11:03:46 GMT -5 hoyazeke said:

I completely forgot about Domingo but for every Lubick(soso shot that regressed) I can give you a CWright or Kel whoses shot got better. I think III needed to be replaced but I think he did a good job of coaching up kids that wanted to be coached.....

Who can forget Jeremiah Rivers. That guy could not shoot . He spent a whole summer with dad's money hiring a shooting coach and shoooting 10,000 shots only to come back and shoot bricks and air balls.

For some reason III could not identify who had good mechanics or could shoot because Lubbick and Rivers had flawed form and Cameron had a slow release.

I think bringing in Wallace has helped improve mulmore, Kaleb and Jagan arc.

I did forget Rivers but he doesn't fit the debate. He didn't improve or regress..... I think Rivers would have been great on our current roster. He could run an offense and was really good off the bounce. He couldn't shoot but he could finish at the rim and drive /dish......

[FrazierFanatic]

Jan 17, 2018 23:17:42 GMT -5 playtyler said:

Thanks for the reply. I actually agree with everything you said. Not sure if govan improved or the offense runs more through him with peak and pryor gone. Govan had some great games last year.

Agreed. I think Govan has improved (1) in defending without fouling as much, and (2) can stop and pop the 8-12 foot jumper much better.

I am optimistic about Patrick for multiple reasons, but there is certainly no guarantee of success. But we do know he has always been a hard worker, that always helps!

[FrazierFanatic]

Jan 18, 2018 9:04:38 GMT -5 ColumbiaHeightsHoya said:

Jan 18, 2018 8:59:52 GMT -5 GUJook97 said:

Yeah, Im not going to overreact to that game. I was there, and that is just a really good team. They would likely beat 95% of the teams in America on the road. They had us throttled every where, and we played a pace that enabled them run up the score. Plus, they had a good night shooting.

There are still several winnable games this season.

Outside of the next two, what other winnable games do you see? Possibly Provy at home & Marquette at home. Outside of that I am not seeing it.

On a good night, there are 4 or 5 games in which we have a shot. 5 or 6 wins was pretty much the ceiling for this team all along, nothing has changed that.

[ColumbiaHeightsHoya]

Jan 18, 2018 12:53:23 GMT -5 FrazierFanatic said:

Jan 18, 2018 9:04:38 GMT -5 ColumbiaHeightsHoya said:

Outside of the next two, what other winnable games do you see? Possibly Provy at home & Marquette at home. Outside of that I am not seeing it.

On a good night, there are 4 or 5 games in which we have a shot. 5 or 6 wins was pretty much the ceiling for this team all along, nothing has changed that.

I agree on that. The ceiling of 5 to 6 makes sense but I think the floor of 3 to 4 is possible if heads aren't right. Saturday should be telling to see what we get after two straight shellackings.

[lichoya68]

NOVA COULD WIN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP


YUP NUF SAID go hoyas omg that was unreal move move move and move on BEAT THE JOHNNIES

[hoyalove4ever]

Yeah, they are very good and were on fire last night.