|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jun 30, 2005 10:56:16 GMT -5
Lineup:
The guards will be Cook and either Wallace or Sapp.
Brandon should play the three, which is his natural position.
Jeff is a true four and will be our anchor.
Roy will start at five and stay there unless he stinks it up or somebody else (most likely Owens) is so hot that he just gets bumped out.
JT III started Roy as a very raw frosh. Don't you think he'll start him as at least a somewhat-improved soph? III understands that the ceiling with Roy playing at least decent is far above our ceiling under any other conceivable scenario. As fans, we must be patient through the turnovers and awkward plays. Remember how potent an effective seven-footer is and give Roy the time he needs to develop.
|
|
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 10:59:13 GMT -5
_way...you really hate Billy Beane and the ideas behind Moneyball, don't you?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 30, 2005 11:00:15 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. Well, I watched the games as well. I think Tyler is a very good rebounder for a 3. The stats simply back up my personal evaluation as well.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Jun 30, 2005 11:10:07 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. Well, I watched the games as well. I think Tyler is a very good rebounder for a 3. The stats simply back up my personal evaluation as well. The stats belittle your personal evaluation. You say Tyler is not an okay, not average, not solid, but a great rebounder. What stats back that up. When, during the game, did he show on a consistent basis that he was a great rebounder. Your stats don't back up the fact that Tyler is a 3 in a 2's body. Your stats don't back up the fact that Tyler is a great cutter, and moves well without the basketball. Your stats don't back up that Tyler doesn't mind playing in the paint for a guy his height. You wouldn't know these things unless you actually watch Tyler play. Your stats don't back up anything unless we are talking virtual reality. But we are not talking virtual reality. We are talking basketball.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 30, 2005 11:16:03 GMT -5
Well, I watched the games as well. I think Tyler is a very good rebounder for a 3. The stats simply back up my personal evaluation as well. The stats belittle your personal evaluation. You say Tyler is not an okay, not average, not solid, but a great rebounder. What stats back that up. When, during the game, did he show on a consistent basis that he was a great rebounder. Your stats don't back up the fact that Tyler is a 3 in a 2's body. Your stats don't back up the fact that Tyler is a great cutter, and moves well without the basketball. Your stats don't back up that Tyler doesn't mind playing in the paint for a guy his height. You wouldn't know these things unless you actually watch Tyler play. Your stats don't back up anything unless we are talking virtual reality. But we are not talking virtual reality. We are talking basketball. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 30, 2005 11:19:02 GMT -5
The stats belittle your personal evaluation. You say Tyler is not an okay, not average, not solid, but a great rebounder. What stats back that up. When, during the game, did he show on a consistent basis that he was a great rebounder. Your stats don't back up the fact that Tyler is a 3 in a 2's body. Your stats don't back up the fact that Tyler is a great cutter, and moves well without the basketball. Your stats don't back up that Tyler doesn't mind playing in the paint for a guy his height. You wouldn't know these things unless you actually watch Tyler play. Your stats don't back up anything unless we are talking virtual reality. But we are not talking virtual reality. We are talking basketball. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. "A simple no would've done just fine." "Miss Lippy, the part of the story I don't like, is that the boy stops looking for his dog after an hour. He just sits on his porch like a goon, he didn't put up posters or anything. That boy's gotta think 'You got a pet, you got a responsibility!' You can't just look for an hour and call it quits. So you get your ass out there and you find that f@#$@#' dog!"
|
|
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 30, 2005 11:41:48 GMT -5
tippy canoe and tyler too ... i just think that tyler will contribute more this year than most of you think.. but thats just one mans opinion .. go hoyas .. go tyler
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Jun 30, 2005 11:48:15 GMT -5
The stats belittle your personal evaluation. You say Tyler is not an okay, not average, not solid, but a great rebounder. What stats back that up. When, during the game, did he show on a consistent basis that he was a great rebounder. Your stats don't back up the fact that Tyler is a 3 in a 2's body. Your stats don't back up the fact that Tyler is a great cutter, and moves well without the basketball. Your stats don't back up that Tyler doesn't mind playing in the paint for a guy his height. You wouldn't know these things unless you actually watch Tyler play. Your stats don't back up anything unless we are talking virtual reality. But we are not talking virtual reality. We are talking basketball. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. When someone can't admit they are wrong, its amazing how quickly they change the subject and break off into another tangent. Its okay to admit when you are wrong and don't have two legs to stand on. You are human like the rest of us. Your farts don't smell like perfume. They stink just like everybody elses.
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Jun 30, 2005 11:51:32 GMT -5
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. Are you aware that other people can "understand the game of basketball" while still disagree with you? Your arguments are hardly backed up with anything but arrogance. If the only GU basketball you have watched the last three years was the VERY END of last season, with a few snippets of select games (primarily outside of BE play), I would agree that DJ is entitled to a starting role. He was great. But FACTS (not projections) and his play in most Big East games shows he has a strong tendency to disappear and shy away from leadership. You: DJ is a no-brainer to start. Reality: Player G FG FT REB PTS AVG. Owens '04 32 81-173 17-25 96 232 7.2 Owens '03 28 89-179 18-28 106 227 8.1 Owens '02 32 26-63 27-35 66 80 2.5 Crawford '04 24 23-48 4-5 29 57 2.4 These numbers include his magnificent play at the end of the season. Please compare these to Tyler's numbers and account for 1) his inexperience as a freshman and 2) complete lack of minutes, and you'll find that Tyler at least deserves real consideration. Also, Tyler's numbers are very similar in his freshman year to Owens "freshman" year. Crawford and Owens also had a similar shooting percentage last season (Crawford's was better). Hardly a no-brainer. I'm not making an argument necessarily against Owens, just trying to show that Owens is not head and shoulders above the rest. I'm interested to see if one of our incoming freshman could sneak in an steal the spot from either of them . . .
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Jun 30, 2005 12:47:46 GMT -5
We are talking about who should start this year. We are talking about who should start this year. Not who should start 2002-2003 or 2004-2005. We are not comparing Tyler's stats vs. DJ's stats. We are talking about the fact that Tyler is a solid player, and we hope to see him develop further as a player. However, his play from last year and the fact that JTIII did not play him a significant amount minutes indicated he should not be starting. Additionally, DJ is the better player and gives us a better chance of winning by starting. Also, given the fact that DJ really stepped up big at the end of the season and years of experience, it is a no-brainer to start him, specifically over Tyler.
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Jun 30, 2005 13:02:51 GMT -5
We are talking about who should start this year. We are talking about who should start this year. Not who should start 2002-2003 or 2004-2005. We are not comparing Tyler's stats vs. DJ's stats. We are talking about the fact that Tyler is a solid player, and we hope to see him develop further as a player. However, his play from last year and the fact that JTIII did not play him a significant amount minutes indicated he should not be starting. Additionally, DJ is the better player and gives us a better chance of winning by starting. Also, given the fact that DJ really stepped up big at the end of the season and years of experience, it is a no-brainer to start him, specifically over Tyler. I presented DJ's career stats to illustrate his lack of progress between his 2nd and 3rd season. What makes you think he'll improve for this coming season? I don't think anyone was perfectly happy with his production last year, which would mean we want to see improvement. He doesn't have a history of significant improvements (the jump in pts per game between his first and second years is attributable to playing time). I like Owens as a sixth man because of his length and handle, but a streaky player doesn't fit into starting lineups very well. I like more consistency all around in a starting player. I already conceded the fact that based on a few games at the end of last year, he should start. But you can't ignore years of underachieving because he stepped up in the NIT.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 30, 2005 13:24:25 GMT -5
We are talking about who should start this year. We are talking about who should start this year. Not who should start 2002-2003 or 2004-2005. We are not comparing Tyler's stats vs. DJ's stats. We are talking about the fact that Tyler is a solid player, and we hope to see him develop further as a player. However, his play from last year and the fact that JTIII did not play him a significant amount minutes indicated he should not be starting. Additionally, DJ is the better player and gives us a better chance of winning by starting. Also, given the fact that DJ really stepped up big at the end of the season and years of experience, it is a no-brainer to start him, specifically over Tyler. I love it. You can't project. You can't look at how they performed in the past. You can only agree with him. Logic like "DJ is the better player and gives us a better chance of winning by starting..." That's unimpeachable. He's the better player because he's the better player.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 30, 2005 14:46:25 GMT -5
All hail the_way...he knows all and sees all. Those who stand before him will rue the day.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Jun 30, 2005 14:54:11 GMT -5
All hail the_way...he knows all and sees all. Those who stand before him will rue the day. Now that is a person who has some sense.
|
|
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 15:13:14 GMT -5
"You shall RUE THIS DAY. GO ON NOW, START RUEING"
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Jun 30, 2005 16:55:17 GMT -5
And does being a starter really mean all that much anyway? Against teams where we need rebounding help, or a tougher defensive presence, Tyler might play more. Against a zone or when DJ is in one, and shooting lights out, he will probably play more. JT3 has admitted that he leans more to the "hot hand" during the course of a game than a set rotation, if he can (last year there wasn't all that much depth for those kinds of decisions). Who cares who starts? The guy who proves himself during the games, or who has the talents needed most during any particular time during the game will get the coach's nod, as he should (and that even throws a lot of the frosh into the mix).
So in that regard, maybe Tyler won't "deserve" to start. He may end up getting a heck of a lot of minutes though. I hope he does, because that means he's followed up his strong first year finish with even more improvement. So far JT3 has brought Tyler along sort of the way his dad used to like to bring freshmen along when he had the luxury -- learning the system in practice and on the bench first, and then on the court once ready to be a player.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jun 30, 2005 18:27:19 GMT -5
Wait, the_way, I'm confused. A measurement of how many rebounds a guy gets isn't a good measure of how well he rebounds?
|
|
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 30, 2005 19:15:25 GMT -5
CANT WE ALL JUST BE FRIENDS?... GO HOYAS. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.. AND ALL THIS STUFF MEANS NOTHING EVEN MY OPINIONS.. WHAT COUNTS IS WHAT HAPPENS ON THE FLOOR NEXT YEAR.. GO HOYAS
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jun 30, 2005 20:12:34 GMT -5
Following up on Saxacd's comments about "starting" vs. "contributing" (if I can summarize his point).... the keys are really who gets the most minutes, and especially, who is in at Crunch time. our Best potential lineup, would include Roy, Jeff and Brandon starting in the front court. That assumes Roy makes good strdes this summer and can really contribute in a big way next season. If that happens, look out!
Here's another perspective. Remember that 3rd guard on the great Detroit teams? I can't remember his name -- Vinnie something -- but his nickname was "the microwave" because he heated things up in a hurry. When the Pistons needed a burst of energy and scoring, they called on the microwave... and this guy Vinnie something would come in and hit some big shots and BOOM, the Pistons were off and runnig. THis is back in the day, when Isiah and Dumars were players not suits.
Or back in the wayback day, Red Auerbach would keep one of his best guys on the bench, then bring him in as sixth man to give his team a huge burst of energy and scoring off the bench. THe most successful and famous for this role -- and an absolutely amazing player -- was John Havlicek. Older fans all know this, this isn't some new insight here. But who knows, maybe DJ could fill that kind of role. Let the other guys start, and bring him in after 8 minutes or so. If he can heat it up like he did the last 5-6 games of the season just ended, what a huge boost that would be for our Hoyas.
If DJ or Crawford or any of those guys is starting, that means Roy isn't starting. That isn't good for us. So I am hoping that doesn't happen.
|
|
idhoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,177
|
Post by idhoya on Jul 2, 2005 11:30:01 GMT -5
Wallace starts at the point. DJ off the bench. In the words of the legendary Big Daddy Kane, "period end of story".
|
|