kbones17
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,186
|
Post by kbones17 on Apr 4, 2018 12:22:58 GMT -5
I think you're right in a literal sense (that a team can have a big man who plays in the low post and win), but I think it's more a matter of whether that strategy makes sense in the modern game. Is a team better positioned when all 5 players can shoot from anywhere, or when one or 2 of your players can only score from the low post? It's almost certainly the former. If you gave me Roy Hibbert, sure, I think that team could succeed because he was a really, really, good offensive player, AND he defended well too. Instead, if you look at guys like Hayes or Hopkins, they were bigger liabilities because were not that good post players and they couldn't shoot at all, either. Govan is a much more well rounded player because he can score from anywhere on the court - it's his defense that really is the bigger thing keeping him from getting to the next level. I would note, however, that Govan actually struggled the most this season when he was parked in the post - when Ewing began bringing him out to the three point line and getting him in position for more layups, his offense improved markedly in the latter half of the Big East. The biggest reason NOT to feature a post player is that even the best post players are usually less efficient in the post than guards and players who shoot threes. I seem to remember someone on Casual did an article where it showed that Marcus Derrickson was one of the most efficient post players, and he still was scoring less than a point per possession (which is not good). Post play can be useful in giving a different look from time to time, or taking advantage of some mismatches (especially against really bad teams), but it should not be a major component of a modern offense. You want balance. You don't want to be all perimeter oriented,and you don't don't want to be all post play. If you relay only on outside shooting, you are going to go cold from outside eventually. Then you are pretty much out of luck (no pun) If you rely only on the post, you will be like us this year with Govan and Marcus. Inside-outside game is the best. Nova's "bigs" can score in the paint when necessary. Nova can also shoot lights out from 3. And the times they don't, they have other areas, like defense, they can make up for it. They don't really have a go-to-guy in that if their main guy struggles, they fall apart as we saw in the championship game. In other words, Nova can beat you in different ways. Good balance. The Big Man is still relevant today. Ironically, Ewing would be perfect in today's era. His ability to run the floor and move like a 6'5 wing player at 7'0" tall was rare. Wouldn't even have to shoot 3's. Just defend and get his touches inside. Agree with this. You need balance, and elite teams (like Nova) have it. That said, it isn’t a 50/50 balance; game is heavily weighted towards the perimeter game (3’s and off the dribble). I think you need at least 3-4 players on the court at all times that can play from outside in. Defensively you also need athletes with high motor to keep that same balance between offense/defense. That said, again, the game is weighted offensively so it’s not a 50/50 balance between offensive and defensive skills. You can be a good team that is all perimeter offense and no defense in this day and age (think Creighton) but to be elite you need to have that balance.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,430
|
Post by MCIGuy on Apr 4, 2018 12:27:31 GMT -5
The added benefit of Marcus and Jesse was that they were not confined to scoring in the post. They could get points from layups/dunks to threes and everything in between, from all angles on the court. Ewing was quoted saying they were his two best two-point shooters and three-point shooters.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,807
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 4, 2018 12:28:10 GMT -5
Nate Lubick, Stephen Domingo, Reggie Cameron, Issac Copeland, Tre Campbell come to mind These players all seemed to regress and lose their shot the more they played, but Lubick is the biggest culprit as he avg. 4.9 pts/gm for his career III never recruited over him and started him for 4 years Even in both of his NCAA Tourney games Lubick never scored more than 4 pts Lubick was told not to shoot by the coaches--similar to Julian Vaughn, he was told to stay inside and let the guards take the shots. Lubick took a total of five three point attempts in is last two years, probably because he would be pulled from the game if he did. Nevertheless, he averaged over 55 percent from the field, albeit within eight feet. Also, Stephen Domingo was a shooter who was poorly recruited and the decision to enroll him a year early was stupid on many levels. He never recovered.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Apr 4, 2018 12:31:18 GMT -5
Nate Lubick's jumpshot came out of his hands like a curve ball. He should not be shooting threes.
Domingo just wasn't good. I don't see any reason to think the early enrollment mattered one way or another.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Apr 4, 2018 13:09:34 GMT -5
Nate Lubick's jumpshot came out of his hands like a curve ball. He should not be shooting threes. Domingo just wasn't good. I don't see any reason to think the early enrollment mattered one way or another. Lubick was III's answer to critics that his teams were too soft and his big men were too finesse. He was III's version of Don Reid.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Apr 4, 2018 15:00:50 GMT -5
Nate Lubick, Stephen Domingo, Reggie Cameron, Issac Copeland, Tre Campbell come to mind These players all seemed to regress and lose their shot the more they played, but Lubick is the biggest culprit as he avg. 4.9 pts/gm for his career III never recruited over him and started him for 4 years Even in both of his NCAA Tourney games Lubick never scored more than 4 pts Lubick was told not to shoot by the coaches--similar to Julian Vaughn, he was told to stay inside and let the guards take the shots. Lubick took a total of five three point attempts in is last two years, probably because he would be pulled from the game if he did. Nevertheless, he averaged over 55 percent from the field, albeit within eight feet. Also, Stephen Domingo was a shooter who was poorly recruited and the decision to enroll him a year early was stupid on many levels. He never recovered. I was impressed by your airport BTW. Really nice layout with the restaurants and shops in the terminals.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,393
|
Post by prhoya on Apr 4, 2018 15:55:19 GMT -5
Nate Lubick's jumpshot came out of his hands like a curve ball. He should not be shooting threes. Domingo just wasn't good. I don't see any reason to think the early enrollment mattered one way or another. Lubick was III's answer to critics that his teams were too soft and his big men were too finesse. He was III's version of Don Reid. Knee-jerk reactions to lacking a master plan. IIRC Domingo and Reggie were recruited because JT3 would be missing a sharpshooter on the following year's roster. The fact that they were one-dimensional and lacked all other skills was ignored. Then, when that one dimension turned out to be below Div. 1 standards and what you recruited turned out to be a deer caught in headlights, there was no back-up plan, and it hurt the team and the program.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,393
|
Post by prhoya on Apr 4, 2018 15:58:42 GMT -5
Nate Lubick's jumpshot came out of his hands like a curve ball. He should not be shooting threes. Domingo just wasn't good. I don't see any reason to think the early enrollment mattered one way or another. Lubick was III's answer to critics that his teams were too soft and his big men were too finesse. He was III's version of Don Reid. Knee-jerk reactions to lacking a master plan. IIRC Domingo and Reggie were recruited because JT3 would be missing a sharpshooter on the following year's roster. The fact that they were one-dimensional and lacked all other skills was ignored. Then, when that one dimension turned out to be below Div. 1 standards and what you recruited turned out to be a deer caught in headlights, there was no back-up plan, and it hurt the team and the program.
|
|
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 Apr 4, 2018 16:41:47 GMT -5
Lubick was III's answer to critics that his teams were too soft and his big men were too finesse. He was III's version of Don Reid. Knee-jerk reactions to lacking a master plan. IIRC Domingo and Reggie were recruited because JT3 would be missing a sharpshooter on the following year's roster. The fact that they were one-dimensional and lacked all other skills was ignored. Then, when that one dimension turned out to be below Div. 1 standards and what you recruited turned out to be a deer caught in headlights, there was no back-up plan, and it hurt the team and the program. I keep seeing the phrase, IIRC. What does it mean? I think Domingo got famous for scoring a lot points during his USA Basketball stint which lead to a lot of excitement when the Hoyas recruited him. With Reggie Cameron, I wonder how he garnered such a buzz on the board?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,552
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 4, 2018 17:11:25 GMT -5
Knee-jerk reactions to lacking a master plan. IIRC Domingo and Reggie were recruited because JT3 would be missing a sharpshooter on the following year's roster. The fact that they were one-dimensional and lacked all other skills was ignored. Then, when that one dimension turned out to be below Div. 1 standards and what you recruited turned out to be a deer caught in headlights, there was no back-up plan, and it hurt the team and the program. I keep seeing the phrase, IIRC. What does it mean? I think Domingo got famous for scoring a lot points during his USA Basketball stint which lead to a lot of excitement when the Hoyas recruited him. With Reggie Cameron, I wonder how he garnered such a buzz on the board? IIRC = If I recall correctly
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Apr 4, 2018 17:37:58 GMT -5
Knee-jerk reactions to lacking a master plan. IIRC Domingo and Reggie were recruited because JT3 would be missing a sharpshooter on the following year's roster. The fact that they were one-dimensional and lacked all other skills was ignored. Then, when that one dimension turned out to be below Div. 1 standards and what you recruited turned out to be a deer caught in headlights, there was no back-up plan, and it hurt the team and the program. I keep seeing the phrase, IIRC. What does it mean? LMGTFY
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,391
|
Post by drquigley on Apr 4, 2018 18:22:24 GMT -5
I think you can still win with a big man who plays purely low post offense, and who can't create off the dribble. But you can't win with zero players who can create off the dribble - which is basically what we were trying to do last year. Mosely and Dickerson could occasionally create off the dribble, but they turned the ball over or ended up throwing up terrible shots far too often to be able to run a truly functional offense. The fact that we were able to cobble together a halfway decent offense without having this tool in our offensive toolbox is a real testament to Ewing's first year offensive coaching. He figured out how to build an offense around two good low post players who could also step out and hit a jump shot. Believe me, this is not the desired offensive structure for any team anymore. But if you surround a low post player with 3 or 4 other guys who can create off the dribble and hit the 3 - then you have the foundation of a good offense. . Hopefully Pickett will develop his dribble drive game, and McClung can adjust to BE level play quickly. Plus if we can add a real point guard before November - even better. If this happens, then Govan and Derrickson will have more space to operate down low, and their ability to step out and shoot from 3 will open up space for the drivers. Ask Kansas and Michigan how this worked out against Nova.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,807
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 4, 2018 19:15:48 GMT -5
I was impressed by your airport BTW. Really nice layout with the restaurants and shops in the terminals. You ought to see the bus station. As to recruiting misses, there were relatively few for Thompson or even Esherick. What fans call "misses" usually fell into one of three categories: 1. Injuries. We'll never know how good a David Blue, a Johnathan Edwards, a Michael Tate or a Jahidi White could have been because injuries set them back significantly. Matt Causey comes to mind--he played without knee cartillage during his college days, and anyone that has suffered through knee problems can imagine that kind of pain game after game. 2. Wrong Place, Wrong Time. DC wasn't for everyone, nor was getting along the Thompson system. David Dunn, Kevin Floyd, Anthony Tucker, David Edwards, Duane Spencer..each of these earned all-conference recognition elsewhere that naturally eluded them in one year or more at Georgetown. David Edwards was the real deal when Allen Iverson was still in 6th grade, only John Thompson wanted guards at that time that were not flashy and played to script. 3. The A's, B's, and C's. There have been players that had the talent on the court but just didn't put it together in class. I'm reminded of the quote from Richmond coach Dick Tarrant, who cut Milton Bell from his roster before he even played a game: "I guess he figured we could give him all A's, B's and C's just because he could run, jump and dunk." Yes, there have been legit "misses". One would think that within a national championship season, Georgetown could have landed a Danny Manning, Duane Ferrell, or Delray Brooks. Instead, it was Grady Mateen. Georgetown famously "missed" on Grant Hill, Kenny Anderson, and George Lynch. But someone at GU seriously thought Shamel Jones, Jason Burns, or Cornelio Guibunda had "it". No one else did. Every program can stumble now and then, the problem for JT III was the run of misses: Bolden, Domingo, Cameron, the failed experiment that was Josh Smith, skipping past the future stars of the 2015-16 Villanova title team, the misses on Isaac Copeland, Paul White and Tre Campbell...all in one class. If the Class of 2018 hadn't gone AWOL, Patrick Ewing is still an NBA assistant and John Thompson is still cashing six figure paychecks every two weeks. It wasn't "wrong place, wrong time", it was "eyes off the prize"... a prize that now sits on the Main Line because Jay T. Wright paid attention while John T. III didn't. And speaking of misses, Georgetown missed badly in facilities during the good times. Other learned that lesson. Villanova has a completely renovated Pavilion for them this fall:
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,430
|
Post by MCIGuy on Apr 4, 2018 19:20:40 GMT -5
I think you can still win with a big man who plays purely low post offense, and who can't create off the dribble. But you can't win with zero players who can create off the dribble - which is basically what we were trying to do last year. Mosely and Dickerson could occasionally create off the dribble, but they turned the ball over or ended up throwing up terrible shots far too often to be able to run a truly functional offense. The fact that we were able to cobble together a halfway decent offense without having this tool in our offensive toolbox is a real testament to Ewing's first year offensive coaching. He figured out how to build an offense around two good low post players who could also step out and hit a jump shot. Believe me, this is not the desired offensive structure for any team anymore. But if you surround a low post player with 3 or 4 other guys who can create off the dribble and hit the 3 - then you have the foundation of a good offense. . Hopefully Pickett will develop his dribble drive game, and McClung can adjust to BE level play quickly. Plus if we can add a real point guard before November - even better. If this happens, then Govan and Derrickson will have more space to operate down low, and their ability to step out and shoot from 3 will open up space for the drivers. Ask Kansas and Michigan how this worked out against Nova. Keep moving the goal posts. Those two teams did make it to the Final Four didn't they?
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,639
|
Post by DallasHoya on Apr 4, 2018 20:00:41 GMT -5
I was impressed by your airport BTW. Really nice layout with the restaurants and shops in the terminals. You ought to see the bus station. And speaking of misses, Georgetown missed badly in facilities during the good times. Other learned that lesson. Villanova has a completely renovated Pavilion for them this fall: The last sentence says it all. For those us who went to Georgetown in the 1980s, it is unforgivable how the administration squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to capitalize on our position as the #1 basketball program in the country. JT2 should have had a new arena and a new practice facility in the early 1990s at the latest for what he did for the university in the 80s. And they Editeded it all away.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,430
|
Post by MCIGuy on Apr 4, 2018 20:37:18 GMT -5
Sorry but neither MD nor Govan could score off the dribble. And Jesse was downright awful defensively more than 5 feet from the basket. That's why he didn't make first or second team all BE, why he isn't a legitimate NBA draft pick, and why Jay Wright wouldn't want him on his team. Sure he helped us to an impressive 5-13 record this year and put up good numbers but he is not the model for any team aspiring for national prominence. You can't have the motion offense it takes to win today with big men whose mobility with the ball is limited. In watching him the last 3 years I think I've seen him actually take his man to the hoop and score less than 10 times. Sure, get him the ball in the paint and he has the footwork (especially with PE working with him) to score. But having to run our offense around getting him the ball in the paint is classic old school basketball and what made us look so hapless at times. And his defensive liabilities contributed a lot to our awful defensive numbers. Hey, I'm not posting this because I like knocking the Hoyas or am a Jesse Govan hater. I give him credit for working his tail off and improving remarkably since last year. I'm posting it because watching Nova the last few years has convinced me that they are the model we have to work towards and that the era of the classic big man is over. I'm hoping that next year we see more of Walker and hopefully another more mobile, agile perhaps not as big big recruit. Both Derrickson and Govan scored off the dribble a few times each this past season and I still have the games to prove it. But I wouldn't call it a strength of theirs. And you know what? I couldn't care less. I don't need my bigs to be able to beat people off the dribble. It is a nice luxury to have, but not if it at an expense of other areas of their game. So far as scoring is concerned I will always prefer big men who can score with ACTUAL POST MOVES when they get the ball instead of relying on guards to set them up for uncontested slams. I prefer bigs who can counter, pivot, go to an option B or C or D or at least make the right pass when their first option is taken away. I prefer bigs who can hit fadeaways if needbe or turnaround jumpers. I prefer bigs who can shoot numerous midrange jumpers from all sorts of angles. I prefer bigs who can be efficient while taking such shots. And if the bigs can also legitimately stretch the floor with timely three-pointers then I pretty much love that too. I prefer bigs who can get sent to the line and hit their freakin' free throws once they get there. I prefer bigs who have the guts, the willingness and the ability to take and make big shots down the stretch in games. I prefer bigs who can also outrebound opponents on a regular basis. If they can do all of that but can't, God forbid, take their defenders off the dribble on a regular basis I will find it in my heart to forgive them. I realize you have a ::beep:: for all things Villanova at this moment (go get a room for Lord's sake). I hate to break it to you that if Spellman and Paschall were on this same Hoya team instead of Govan and Derrickson, the record for the Georgetown team wouldn't be any better. Granted the defense would be improved but the offense would be a complete mess. No one would have to double Spellman and Paschall because neither are nearly as good at posting up thereby drawing defenders. They wouldn't get such open looks at the three or easy dunks in the paint because they would be playing with perimeter personnel who were incapable or too inexperienced to get them those looks. Defenses were more concerned about the perimeter guys for Nova so Spellman and Paschall could get some easy points. Put them on Georgetown and suddenly they may become the primary targets of the defenses and there is nothing they displayed that indicated they could yet be players offenses can be ran through; nothing they displayed that showed they could effectively handle that sort of attention. We have Big East coaches referring to Govan and Derrickson as the most formidable frontcourt duo in the Big East, guys they have to specifically gameplan for. We have professional broadcasters, who played the game an are paid to know as much about what is going on in college basketball, showering praise upon them, referring to them as some of the very best players in the conference. And then there are the message board experts like yourself who ignore all of that, ignore the numbers put up, ignore whom Derrickson and Govan had to play alongside this season and instead resort to making these inane and contrary claims. Hell, you contradict yourself when you praise slower and less dimensional bigs of successful NCAA teams over Govan and Derrickson. It is as if you are not paying attention. You keep complaining about Govan and Derrickson being these types of dinosaurs who were playing an ancient style that bogged Gtown down. Wrong. The two of them are actually a hybrid type of big that very valuable in that they are just as good at facing the basket and playing away from the paint as they are at getting hoops inside the paint. That's a reality you refuse to accept as you keep describing them as if they were Jahidi White clones. Ewing ran an uptempo offense and Govan and Derrickson were able to keep up with it rather than causing it to slow down. And when they got the ball in the paint they didn't hold onto the ball endlessly waiting to make a move. The ball MOVED from player-to-player pretty quickly. The unimpressive record of the Hoyas this past season was not so much a result of anything Govan and Derrickson did/didn't do, but rather more of the consequences of the awful shooting numbers and the endless turnovers by the guys on the perimeter. Therefore the key to turning it all around is for the returning perimeter guys to get better and for more talented new perimeter guys to come in for those who are departing. I would argue that Govan wasn't as downright awful on defense as you make him out to be but it would just lead to another petty argument and frankly I've already wasted too much time in a pointless debate that won't affect anything the team does going forward. But let me leave you with the possibility that just perhaps the defensive woes laid equally with Goran and perimeter players who couldn't stop the drives and penetrations of opponents enough. Hell, at least give Govan credit for not fouling at the rate he did in his first two years when he was playing far less minutes. And by the way there was no greater head-scratcher weeks ago regarding the All Big East Teams on twitter by the Big East media than Govan's absence. Many were downright puzzled by that with a few who thought he belonged more than Derrickson. Personally I thought that it was probably too much to try justifying two guys from a sub .500 team making an All Conference list and the coaches had to individually settle on one and Marcus ended up getting more votes. But I'm so glad you were able to learn that the true reason Govan was left off was because of the deficiencies in his defense. Mystery solved.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,391
|
Post by drquigley on Apr 4, 2018 20:42:14 GMT -5
Ask Kansas and Michigan how this worked out against Nova. Keep moving the goal posts. Those two teams did make it to the Final Four didn't they? Yes they did..and were still crushed by Nova. I'd rather have as our model the crusher rather than the cruhsee.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Apr 4, 2018 20:54:25 GMT -5
Sorry but neither MD nor Govan could score off the dribble. And Jesse was downright awful defensively more than 5 feet from the basket. That's why he didn't make first or second team all BE, why he isn't a legitimate NBA draft pick, and why Jay Wright wouldn't want him on his team. Sure he helped us to an impressive 5-13 record this year and put up good numbers but he is not the model for any team aspiring for national prominence. You can't have the motion offense it takes to win today with big men whose mobility with the ball is limited. In watching him the last 3 years I think I've seen him actually take his man to the hoop and score less than 10 times. Sure, get him the ball in the paint and he has the footwork (especially with PE working with him) to score. But having to run our offense around getting him the ball in the paint is classic old school basketball and what made us look so hapless at times. And his defensive liabilities contributed a lot to our awful defensive numbers. Hey, I'm not posting this because I like knocking the Hoyas or am a Jesse Govan hater. I give him credit for working his tail off and improving remarkably since last year. I'm posting it because watching Nova the last few years has convinced me that they are the model we have to work towards and that the era of the classic big man is over. I'm hoping that next year we see more of Walker and hopefully another more mobile, agile perhaps not as big big recruit. Both Derrickson and Govan scored off the dribble a few times each this past season and I still have the games to prove it. But I wouldn't call it a strength of theirs. And you know what? I couldn't care less. I don't need my bigs to be able to beat people off the dribble. It is a nice luxury to have, but not if it at an expense of other areas of their game. So far as scoring is concerned I will always prefer big men who can score with ACTUAL POST MOVES when they get the ball instead of relying on guards to set them up for uncontested slams. I prefer bigs who can counter, pivot, go to an option B or C or D or at least make the right pass when their first option is taken away. I prefer bigs who can hit fadeaways if needbe or turnaround jumpers. I prefer bigs who can shoot numerous midrange jumpers from all sorts of angles. I prefer bigs who can be efficient while taking such shots. And if the bigs can also legitimately stretch the floor with timely three-pointers then I pretty much love that too. I prefer bigs who can get sent to the line and hit their freakin' free throws once they get there. I prefer bigs who have the guts, the willingness and the ability to take and make big shots down the stretch in games. I prefer bigs who can also outrebound opponents on a regular basis. If they can do all of that but can't, God forbid, take their defenders off the dribble on a regular basis I will find it in my heart to forgive them. I realize you have a ::beep:: for all things Villanova at this moment (go get a room for Lord's sake). I hate to break it to you that if Spellman and Paschall were on this same Hoya team instead of Govan and Derrickson, the record for the Georgetown team wouldn't be any better. Granted the defense would be improved but the offense would be a complete mess. No one would have to double Spellman and Paschall because neither are nearly as good at posting up thereby drawing defenders. They wouldn't get such open looks at the three or easy dunks in the paint because they would be playing with perimeter personnel who were incapable or too inexperienced to get them those looks. Defenses were more concerned about the perimeter guys for Nova so Spellman and Paschall could get some easy points. Put them on Georgetown and suddenly they may become the primary targets of the defenses and there is nothing they displayed that indicated they could yet be players offenses can be ran through; nothing they displayed that showed they could effectively handle that sort of attention. We have Big East coaches referring to Govan and Derrickson as the most formidable frontcourt duo in the Big East, guys they have to specifically gameplan for. We have professional broadcasters, who played the game an are paid to know as much about what is going on in college basketball, showering praise upon them, referring to them as some of the very best players in the conference. And then there are the message board experts like yourself who ignore all of that, ignore the numbers put up, ignore whom Derrickson and Govan had to play alongside this season and instead resort to making these inane and contrary claims. Hell, you contradict yourself when you praise slower and less dimensional bigs of successful NCAA teams over Govan and Derrickson. It is as if you are not paying attention. You keep complaining about Govan and Derrickson being these types of dinosaurs who were playing an ancient style that bogged Gtown down. Wrong. The two of them are actually a hybrid type of big that very valuable in that they are just as good at facing the basket and playing away from the paint as they are at getting hoops inside the paint. That's a reality you refuse to accept as you keep describing them as if they were Jahidi White clones. Ewing ran an uptempo offense and Govan and Derrickson were able to keep up with it rather than causing it to slow down. And when they got the ball in the paint they didn't hold onto the ball endlessly waiting to make a move. The ball MOVED from player-to-player pretty quickly. The unimpressive record of the Hoyas this past season was not so much a result of anything Govan and Derrickson did/didn't do, but rather more of the consequences of the awful shooting numbers and the endless turnovers by the guys on the perimeter. Therefore the key to turning it all around is for the returning perimeter guys to get better and for more talented new perimeter guys to come in for those who are departing. I would argue that Govan wasn't as downright awful on defense as you make him out to be but it would just lead to another petty argument and frankly I've already wasted too much time in a pointless debate that won't affect anything the team does going forward. But let me leave you with the possibility that just perhaps the defensive woes laid equally with Goran and perimeter players who couldn't stop the drives and penetrations of opponents enough. Hell, at least give Govan credit for not fouling at the rate he did in his first two years when he was playing far less minutes. And by the way there was no greater head-scratcher weeks ago regarding the All Big East Teams on twitter by the Big East media than Govan's absence. Many were downright puzzled by that with a few who thought he belonged more than Derrickson. Personally I thought that it was probably too much to try justifying two guys from a sub .500 team making an All Conference list and the coaches had to individually settle on one and Marcus ended up getting more votes. But I'm so glad you were able to learn that the true reason Govan was left off was because of the deficiencies in his defense. Mystery solved. Preach.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,391
|
Post by drquigley on Apr 4, 2018 21:54:39 GMT -5
Sorry but neither MD nor Govan could score off the dribble. And Jesse was downright awful defensively more than 5 feet from the basket. That's why he didn't make first or second team all BE, why he isn't a legitimate NBA draft pick, and why Jay Wright wouldn't want him on his team. Sure he helped us to an impressive 5-13 record this year and put up good numbers but he is not the model for any team aspiring for national prominence. You can't have the motion offense it takes to win today with big men whose mobility with the ball is limited. In watching him the last 3 years I think I've seen him actually take his man to the hoop and score less than 10 times. Sure, get him the ball in the paint and he has the footwork (especially with PE working with him) to score. But having to run our offense around getting him the ball in the paint is classic old school basketball and what made us look so hapless at times. And his defensive liabilities contributed a lot to our awful defensive numbers. Hey, I'm not posting this because I like knocking the Hoyas or am a Jesse Govan hater. I give him credit for working his tail off and improving remarkably since last year. I'm posting it because watching Nova the last few years has convinced me that they are the model we have to work towards and that the era of the classic big man is over. I'm hoping that next year we see more of Walker and hopefully another more mobile, agile perhaps not as big big recruit. Both Derrickson and Govan scored off the dribble a few times each this past season and I still have the games to prove it. But I wouldn't call it a strength of theirs. And you know what? I couldn't care less. I don't need my bigs to be able to beat people off the dribble. It is a nice luxury to have, but not if it at an expense of other areas of their game. So far as scoring is concerned I will always prefer big men who can score with ACTUAL POST MOVES when they get the ball instead of relying on guards to set them up for uncontested slams. I prefer bigs who can counter, pivot, go to an option B or C or D or at least make the right pass when their first option is taken away. I prefer bigs who can hit fadeaways if needbe or turnaround jumpers. I prefer bigs who can shoot numerous midrange jumpers from all sorts of angles. I prefer bigs who can be efficient while taking such shots. And if the bigs can also legitimately stretch the floor with timely three-pointers then I pretty much love that too. I prefer bigs who can get sent to the line and hit their freakin' free throws once they get there. I prefer bigs who have the guts, the willingness and the ability to take and make big shots down the stretch in games. I prefer bigs who can also outrebound opponents on a regular basis. If they can do all of that but can't, God forbid, take their defenders off the dribble on a regular basis I will find it in my heart to forgive them. I realize you have a ::beep:: for all things Villanova at this moment (go get a room for Lord's sake). I hate to break it to you that if Spellman and Paschall were on this same Hoya team instead of Govan and Derrickson, the record for the Georgetown team wouldn't be any better. Granted the defense would be improved but the offense would be a complete mess. No one would have to double Spellman and Paschall because neither are nearly as good at posting up thereby drawing defenders. They wouldn't get such open looks at the three or easy dunks in the paint because they would be playing with perimeter personnel who were incapable or too inexperienced to get them those looks. Defenses were more concerned about the perimeter guys for Nova so Spellman and Paschall could get some easy points. Put them on Georgetown and suddenly they may become the primary targets of the defenses and there is nothing they displayed that indicated they could yet be players offenses can be ran through; nothing they displayed that showed they could effectively handle that sort of attention. We have Big East coaches referring to Govan and Derrickson as the most formidable frontcourt duo in the Big East, guys they have to specifically gameplan for. We have professional broadcasters, who played the game an are paid to know as much about what is going on in college basketball, showering praise upon them, referring to them as some of the very best players in the conference. And then there are the message board experts like yourself who ignore all of that, ignore the numbers put up, ignore whom Derrickson and Govan had to play alongside this season and instead resort to making these inane and contrary claims. Hell, you contradict yourself when you praise slower and less dimensional bigs of successful NCAA teams over Govan and Derrickson. It is as if you are not paying attention. You keep complaining about Govan and Derrickson being these types of dinosaurs who were playing an ancient style that bogged Gtown down. Wrong. The two of them are actually a hybrid type of big that very valuable in that they are just as good at facing the basket and playing away from the paint as they are at getting hoops inside the paint. That's a reality you refuse to accept as you keep describing them as if they were Jahidi White clones. Ewing ran an uptempo offense and Govan and Derrickson were able to keep up with it rather than causing it to slow down. And when they got the ball in the paint they didn't hold onto the ball endlessly waiting to make a move. The ball MOVED from player-to-player pretty quickly. The unimpressive record of the Hoyas this past season was not so much a result of anything Govan and Derrickson did/didn't do, but rather more of the consequences of the awful shooting numbers and the endless turnovers by the guys on the perimeter. Therefore the key to turning it all around is for the returning perimeter guys to get better and for more talented new perimeter guys to come in for those who are departing. I would argue that Govan wasn't as downright awful on defense as you make him out to be but it would just lead to another petty argument and frankly I've already wasted too much time in a pointless debate that won't affect anything the team does going forward. But let me leave you with the possibility that just perhaps the defensive woes laid equally with Goran and perimeter players who couldn't stop the drives and penetrations of opponents enough. Hell, at least give Govan credit for not fouling at the rate he did in his first two years when he was playing far less minutes. And by the way there was no greater head-scratcher weeks ago regarding the All Big East Teams on twitter by the Big East media than Govan's absence. Many were downright puzzled by that with a few who thought he belonged more than Derrickson. Personally I thought that it was probably too much to try justifying two guys from a sub .500 team making an All Conference list and the coaches had to individually settle on one and Marcus ended up getting more votes. But I'm so glad you were able to learn that the true reason Govan was left off was because of the deficiencies in his defense. Mystery solved. Considering how terrible we were this year everyone, coaches, commentators, sportswriters needed to find something positive to say about this team. Obviously Govan and MD were it. Yes they had good years, tremendously improved from the previous two. And yes, without them we wouldn't have beaten Butler and Seton Hall (St. John's and DePaul don't count). But going forward (and this is what I've been trying to get at--not inside Jay Wright's pants) if we are to compete at a national level we need much more mobile big men. I expect next year with a better backcourt we will improve and Govan and MD will be more productive. But we still will struggle against teams that have adopted the Nova model (not to say what will happen to us against Nova). Look, two years from now Govan and MD will be gone. If we replace them with two big men with the same skill sets we will be playing checkers while everyone else is playing (name your favorite video game).
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,430
|
Post by MCIGuy on Apr 4, 2018 22:13:29 GMT -5
Keep moving the goal posts. Those two teams did make it to the Final Four didn't they? Yes they did..and were still crushed by Nova. I'd rather have as our model the crusher rather than the cruhsee. Not the point. You had been whining that Gtown couldn't have a winning record and make it to the tournament with bigs like Govan and Dickerson. Meanwhile in a place called reality, teams with bigs who were much more stiff or one dimensional made it deep into the tournament. Villanova's beating them doesn't discount the fact that those teams found success with big men who don't measure up to your criteria of how big men should play in today's game.
|
|