lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,438
|
Post by lichoya68 on Jun 29, 2005 19:59:09 GMT -5
a word about tyler.. last summer at the end of the season in the kenner when the tombs got hot.. tyler was one of the main reasons in two games... he hit like 5 of seven and 6 of seven threes .. stole the ball.. blocked shots.. rebounded like crazy.. im not saying hes gonna start ..but lets watch him ..hes a good athlete.. and bball player.. go hoyas one and all
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 29, 2005 23:09:16 GMT -5
By the end of the season, I think our starting 5 is Sapp, Cook, Bowman, Green, and Roy. I like Owens as much as anyone else, but I think Roy is going to emerge as a real contributor for us. Remember, contributing does not always mean putting points up on the board on the offensive end. I firmly believe that he gives us more than 10 defensive points per game by altering and blocking layups. In many ways, that is just as valuable as scoring offensively. For those who have seen Roy at Kenner (including myself), the reports have been generally positive.
Playing time is going to be at a premium this season, and just about every spot is going to be hotly contested. It may come down to who works best together rather than identifying the best individual at each position, which many are trying to do in this thread.
I expect to see a Sapp/Wallace battle, Cook/Egerson battle, and a Owens/Hibbert debate during this offseason. The last pair is only to suggest that the staff will need to decide whether to go with a big or small lineup. Obviously, we could also take it on a game-by-game basis. I firmly believe that we only have two safe spots on our roster at this point with Green and Bowman. I could be convinced of the advantage of playing Egerson ahead of Cook if that is how it looks in practices and scrimmages in the fall.
|
|
RBHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,124
|
Post by RBHoya on Jun 30, 2005 0:55:58 GMT -5
A lot is going to depend on how Darrel plays in the preseason and early in the season. There is no doubt that he played great in the postseason last year, the question is whether he is capable of playing at that level on most nights, or if he just happened to string together a few good games at the very end of the season. I trust JTIII to correctly determine the answer to this question. If the end of last year WAS legit and DJ can play at that level on most nights... plus he's got the savvy and leadership of a 5th year senior, he's gotta start and average a good amount of minutes per game...... If III knows that DJ just had a few good nights at the end of last year, I think its pretty likely that Owens resumes the role that he was in for the middle of last season, which is as a sharpshooter off the bench. Hibbert is probably the favorite to start if Owens doesn't--even though I agree the offense is much less smooth with Roy at the top, he still has so much potential and I'm hoping he makes an improvement this offseason.
I have to agree that Tyler is probably a career role player for us though. He hustles and has some skills but unless he really improves his ballhandling I think he'll be coming off the bench the next 3 years. He's only 6'4 but doesn't handle well and is not the greatest shooter (though he's decent), which sort of makes him a forward in a guard's body. I'd like to see him develop into a defensive stopper though. That'd be a great role for him and a great way to get more minutes. As much as I like them, Jon and Ashanti are poor defensively, and without Ray Reed, we're gonna need someone this year to pressure and agitate the McNamaras, Foyes, and Williams of the conference, and Tyler could work out in that role, though Im not sure whos minutes he takes. With Egerson and Spann as well as other recruits coming in, I dont see Tyler Crawford, though he can be valuable as a defender who brings energy off the bench.
Speaking of Spann, why no mention of him? It still seems like nobody really knows a thing about this guy, a problem (for us, hopefully not a "real" problem) thats only exacerbated by his MIA status at Kenner (which hopefully changes soon, as we know what happened to the last Hoya who skipped Kenner).... But from what I know, it seems like Spann would be an ideal fit at the 3 for us... Good height (6'7), good, scrappy rebounder, with some shot blocking and ball handling skills to boot. Seems like he'd be a great fit to start, as he wouldn't need to score, could play tight D, and do a lot of the "little" things for us.... obviously I have no idea how his game actually plays out, but based on scouting reports he might be a nice fit at 3.... I think Eggerson might put up a fight too, but it seems like most reports of his game are that he's strong offensively, and is doing more basket hanging and cherry picking rather than manning up on the defensive end, which is not what we need from a starter right now.
Do you really forsee Sapp/Wallace and Cook/Eggerson battles Jersey? From what I've read it seemed like Jesse would be the heir apparent to Ashanti and inherit his starting spot over time, rather than takeover Jons spot. Jesse (or Josh or Tyler or Eggerson or someone) is gonna have to spell Jon at times, but I was thinking that that would force Ashanti into the point role (where he's servicable but not at his best IMO) with Jesse at 2..... Do you think Jesse is a point, and is he the point guard of the future for us? I've been thinking Jon would start this year and then battle Rivers for PG minutes next year while Jesse took Ashantis starting spot, but I'm not quite familiar enough with Sapp's game yet. I also thought that Eggerson was more of a 3, and would compete with Spann and Tyler for minutes this year and a starting spot next year.
One things for sure though, itll be really interesting to see how III splits the minutes this year.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 30, 2005 3:29:43 GMT -5
I'm intrigued - who was the last Hoya not to show up for Kenner?
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Jun 30, 2005 7:00:30 GMT -5
Couple of points:
1) I think RB was referring to Cornelio when he alluded to a Hoya not showing for KL. Which was not entirely true since he did play in 1 or 2 games at KL. In fact, the one game in which I saw him, he looked good, actually making a layup on a drive from the perimeter (probably his best moment in a game at GU!)
2) Lineup: I really don't see how the starting lineup can change from last year (at least as this year begins), especially given how DJ finished last year and the very brief exposure we've had to KL action to date. That doesn't mean it won't between now and then nor that it won't change over the course of the season. I see Sapp as the PG to sub for Jon, not as a 2 option for Ashanti. And Egerson is more of a 2/3, not that that matters in III's system. Josh is a 1/2, with more tendencies towards the latter than the former...In short, the starters will probably be the same; obviously, I hope Roy improves enough to get significant minutes (20-25+/game). In fact, I think Roy is the key to whether this team has a shot at merely making the Big Dance or going far into it (Sweet 16 or better).....
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,854
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Jun 30, 2005 7:03:16 GMT -5
Cornelio, I think.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jun 30, 2005 8:17:45 GMT -5
Spann isn't on campus yet b/c he's taking classes in the second summer session. Unlike the area recruits, he needs housing to be here and his doesn't kick in til early July when his classes start. I don't know why he's only taking the 2nd session. Does his schollie start paying for stuff prior to the freshman year or is the summer session coming out of his own pocket?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 30, 2005 8:47:25 GMT -5
financial aid has weird cut offs and deadlines regarding the June 30th/July 1st fiscal year break. Things get really tricky regarding loans, housing, and scholarship grants.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jun 30, 2005 9:11:21 GMT -5
financial aid has weird cut offs and deadlines regarding the June 30th/July 1st fiscal year break. Things get really tricky regarding loans, housing, and scholarship grants. Then I think odds are that the reason Spann hasn't shown up yet is b/c of his schollie not kicking in til the July session.
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Jun 30, 2005 9:28:33 GMT -5
Also, first session started June 6th, and there's a high likelihood that Spann was still a senior in high school for at least part of that time, as most high schools graduate in the first couple weekends of June.
So if he couldn't enroll in first session, then he couldn't come up for Kenner until second session (because of the rule that you have to play within 60 or 100 miles of your hometown or within 60 or 100 miles of your college, which he wasn't yet enrolled).
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 30, 2005 9:28:40 GMT -5
There's been some good points here. If someone believes Hibbert is going to blow up, or that DJ will shoot 60% from three, I have a hard time arguing for more time for Tyler. However, a couple of arguments posted here bother me.
1) The argument is that Tyler can't play the 2 because of his handle. What's funny is, while some people have no problem thinking Roy will be All-Big East next year (which is fine), apparently Tyler couldn't have improved at all in the offseason. It's like he got Jon Wallace disease (this is the best he'll ever be!)
2) The fact that he is 6'4" means he can't play small forward.
The first argument is ludicrous, so I'm going to focus on the second. Why do people even look at height? Because it is an indicator of how good he'll be at rebounding, defense, getting his shot off, shotblocking, etc. But we know these things about Tyler. So why the heck do we care what his height is.
Rebounding. He's a better rebounder than DJ is, and it isn't close. DJ may have three inches, but Tyler has a lot more energy and better hops. He had a much better rebound per minute rate than Jeff or Brandon. Is he a better rebounder than them? Maybe, maybe not -- but he is sure as heck good enough to rebound from the 3.
Defense. The Hoyas have TWO legends of small guys guarding bigger ones effectively, and still some people insist you must be tall. Hyde shut down Mikan (though cheating) and McDonald shut down Seikaly, both giving up more than SIX inches. Now maybe Tyler isn't Perry, but we're also not asking him to guard an All-BE center. Most small forwards don't know how to take advantage of their height, and half the teams in college now play a 3 guard lineup (off the top of my head, from our opponents last year -- Rutgers, Nova, St. John's, Illinois). Even when we play a big 3, like Gay, I think quickness is more important than height.
Getting your shot off. I've never seen Tyler have a problem getting a jumper off. Guy has springs.
Shotblocking. Neither he nor Owens seems to be overly proficient, which is fine.
Height shouldn't be the reason Tyler doesn't grab big minutes.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Jun 30, 2005 9:57:46 GMT -5
I'm really having a hard time figuring out why people think Tyler should start over DJ. What has Tyler shown to warrant that he should start. 4-5 to cuts in the Princeton offense during the ENTIRE season does not indicate to me he should start. He has not played enough and when he has played, he hasn't shown that he is starter for this team. Hibbert you have more of an idea based how much he played. But I think Crawford is still a question mark. You can't start saying he is the next Perry McDonald or Adrian Dantley, when he has not really shown anything worth getting excited over. He has shown glimpses of being a solid role player. Thats it. We don't know how great of a rebounder he is. He hasn't played enough. You can't project that. A rebound per minutes doesn't tell you anything. If he was that good of a rebounder, JTIII would have given him more playing time. He is not a starter. DJ should start. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this between Crawford and DJ. Its a no-brainer.
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Jun 30, 2005 10:06:37 GMT -5
I'm really having a hard time figuring out why people think Tyler should start over DJ. What has Tyler shown to warrant that he should start. 4-5 to cuts in the Princeton offense during the ENTIRE season does not indicate to me he should start. He has not played enough and when he has played, he hasn't shown that he is starter for this team. Hibbert you have more of an idea based how much he played. But I think Crawford is still a question mark. You can't start saying he is the next Perry McDonald or Adrian Dantley, when he has not really shown anything worth getting excited over. He has shown glimpses of being a solid role player. Thats it. We don't know how great of a rebounder he is. He hasn't played enough. You can't project that. A rebound per minutes doesn't tell you anything. If he was that good of a rebounder, JTIII would have given him more playing time. He is not a starter. DJ should start. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this between Crawford and DJ. Its a no-brainer. While Crawford hasn't proved consistency over any period of time, at least he hasn't proven inconsistency over three years as DJ has.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2005 10:16:02 GMT -5
I'm with you, _way. DJ has earned the right to start. Time served, production at the end of last year, all that jazz. Plus, TC has only shown glimpses of being a solid player, but that's also due to a lack of run.
That said, there are two reasons I would want TC to start over DJ. One, I personally am convinced TC is a superior rebounder and overall defender. And those two areas are where we got killed last year. Two, DJ is a better scorer (or at least has shown to be as such). With so many scorers starting already and not that many on the bench (not counting the frosh, who knows how they turn out), I would prefer him as 6th man - like I said earlier, I can only imagine what's going through the mind of our opponents when - tired, bent over and holding onto their shorts - they smile as Jeff and BB leave the game... only to see Hibbs and DJ walking on the court, fresh and ready to roll. I guess I just want to see III spread the depth evenly over the entire game. Which I am CONFIDENT he will do.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Jun 30, 2005 10:17:43 GMT -5
I'm really having a hard time figuring out why people think Tyler should start over DJ. What has Tyler shown to warrant that he should start. 4-5 to cuts in the Princeton offense during the ENTIRE season does not indicate to me he should start. He has not played enough and when he has played, he hasn't shown that he is starter for this team. Hibbert you have more of an idea based how much he played. But I think Crawford is still a question mark. You can't start saying he is the next Perry McDonald or Adrian Dantley, when he has not really shown anything worth getting excited over. He has shown glimpses of being a solid role player. Thats it. We don't know how great of a rebounder he is. He hasn't played enough. You can't project that. A rebound per minutes doesn't tell you anything. If he was that good of a rebounder, JTIII would have given him more playing time. He is not a starter. DJ should start. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this between Crawford and DJ. Its a no-brainer. While Crawford hasn't proved consistency over any period of time, at least he hasn't proven inconsistency over three years as DJ has. That doesn't matter. DJ is the better player, and was playing the best basketball of any player on the team at the end of the season. You don't sit him down after ending the season like that. DJ and Crawford are apples and oranges. Thats like saying Kill-Kenny Diaw should start of Hibbert. Crawford still hasn't shown anything yet, other than that he is a role player. I think he will develop, but to think he should start over DJ does not make sense basketball-wise. Maybe to the number-crunchers of rebounds-per-hair-follicle and rebounds-per-sweat-beads. But to people who understand the game of basketball, and not calculators, its a no-brainer to start DJ over Crawford.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jun 30, 2005 10:28:09 GMT -5
I see this kind of like what the Wolves did the year they made the conference finals. They started Trenton Hassell over Wally Sczeirbieak b/c Trenton played better defense and rebounded better and the Wolves had lots of scoring already. Wally is the better bball player, but he fit better w/ the second unit as the scorer or a spark off the bench rather than being the 4th option and having to fight for touches.
So as SF put it, if TC starts, that means you have your 5th guy as the guy that's running sharp cuts, getting some boards and generally doing the little things that frees up Jeff and Brandon to do the big things and allows for a second team with two players that are good enough to start in Roy and Darrel (who can also provide a spark off the bench). You want the 5 players that play the best together, not the 5 best players.
[edited b/c I should try and get more than 4 hours of sleep/come to work hungover or at least proofread my posts]
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 30, 2005 10:28:34 GMT -5
I'm really having a hard time figuring out why people think Tyler should start over DJ. Considering I wrote about five thousand words on it, even you should be able to comprehend the argument even if you don't agree. Sigh. So all 900 of your posts on the draft threads aer irrelevant, right? Heck, we can't even project how DJ is going to do. Did you even read the first post, or just skim? I addressed your tired argument in the first one. Not going down this path again with your pointless lack of logic. Tyler had plenty of minutes. It is time to see what he can do. As for DJ being the best player on the team at the end of last year, that may be true. Of course, all he did was hit jumpers. It isn't like he was rebounding, dishing assists, driving, blocking shots and grabbing five steals a game. And DJ might've been the worst player at other times in the season. Since when do five game make a season? My point is not to rip down DJ, anyway. I think Tyler's strengths (namely rebounding) fit better into the starting lineup, while DJ's shooting, if hot, belongs in the game when we don't have Jeff and Brandon to score.How hard is that to comprehend?
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jun 30, 2005 10:38:57 GMT -5
Remind me, what year was that?
Re: SF's arguments about TC's height, or the lack of importance thereof- my issue is not so much with TC's abilities as it is with last year's starting backcourt. I don't have rebound rate stats for Cook and Wallace, but I am sure they are not too impressive. Moreover, neither one showed much ability to defend the better guards in the conference. Ultimately, it was their defensive shortcomings that made playing time for Ray Reed. Owens, while not a particularly effective rebounder, is a better defensive player than either Cook or Wallace. Crawford projects better as a defensive stopper for an opposing guard like McNamara or even Colin Falls than he does as someone to match up with Rudy Gay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2005 10:41:45 GMT -5
Damnit, Jack! How DARE you project on this board!! I call on all HoyaTalk members to send messages to the administrators DEMANDING Jack's lifetime banishment from this hallowed corner of the world wide web. And _way, you HAVE been projecting recently
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Jun 30, 2005 10:52:38 GMT -5
Again, it comes down to basketball evaluation, not calculators. Crawford is not a great rebounder. I've seen Tyler play. I didn't throw him in a virtual reality computer figuration and construct what he hypothetically will do in a game. I actually watched him play. I think Tyler is physical, a banger, and a great cutter. To say he is a great rebounder based soley on rebound per minute or whatever state you conveniently come up with, intead of what he actually does during the game, is asinine. Rebounds per minute are for the birds. That is the Jay Bilas school of talent-evaluation. Its what you do on the basketball court not in a calculator or mathematical formula. I'm glad JTIII doesn't think like you number-crunchers. But then again, JTIII is a Division I basketball coach at a major college program. So thats probably why he didn't play Tyler as much as you think he should have because III isn't enamoured with Tyler's rebound-per-eyelash stats. JTIII plays the players who best help his team win. Starting DJ is the best scenario.
|
|