s4hoyas
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,475
|
Post by s4hoyas on Nov 18, 2019 23:55:08 GMT -5
Q has an excellent and athletic physique...he just appears to lack a bit of experience at this level...he's definitely moldable into a very good prospect if his learning curve is there...needs to understand defensive spacing/positioning better (gotta body up better) and on offense he misses alot of bunnies around the basket due to just throwing it up, shooting it off balance or not using the angle/backboard properly...with coaching and serious work ethic, he can improve these areas significantly...
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,355
|
Post by calhoya on Nov 19, 2019 8:07:26 GMT -5
Agree that now is the time for Wahab to get some experience, but as the Hoyas continue their recent tradition of keeping every opponent in the game it may be difficult to give him much time in the second half of games when the alternative of "going small" is clearly more effective right now, particularly in the Big East against teams without dominant inside players. Pickett, LeBlanc and possibbly Alexander is still a very big front line considering athleticism, wingspan and bounce.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,025
|
Post by jwp91 on Nov 19, 2019 9:19:59 GMT -5
I agree that Qudus is back-up plan #1 to Omer. I think this will be fine so long as we don't force it into the post to him. As someone wrote previously, he has seemed to force up shots from tenuous situations so far. Pickett & Leblanc at the 4/5 are interesting when we won't be taken advantage of.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Nov 19, 2019 10:43:29 GMT -5
I hate generalizing, but I really think HoyaTalk has a tendency to overestimate the role of the big man in college basketball in 2019. Many teams have no true center whatsoever, and even fewer that do have tall big men are the types who are constantly battling in the paint and playing a post up game. The fears about defending these guys are overrated. At most, all a great big guy can do against us from the paint is score 2 points. That's much less important than constantly leaving guys open for three point shots. Incorrect. A dominate big man can take you far and threaten teams that are supposedly untouchable at the NCAA level. A great player at any level can "take you far and threaten teams that are supposedly untouchable at the NCAA level." Using outliers like Zion Williamson and 7'6 Tacko Fall demonstrate my point (not to mention Williamson had a good game despite Fall anyway). And, in that game Zion Williamson went 3-7 from three point range, whereas Fall went 0-0. In the modern game, having a player who doesn't shoot threes at all is a liability. It doesn't mean that type of player isn't useful, but it limits their offensive potential.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Nov 19, 2019 10:48:11 GMT -5
We don't need to bow to the almighty three. If we have good shooters, fine, let it fly. Otherwise, it is okay to play to our strengths, including interior play. Other teams are not built to deal with that and we can exploit it, including by fouling out key opposing players and getting into the double-bonus early.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 11:10:38 GMT -5
We don't need to bow to the almighty three. If we have good shooters, fine, let it fly. Otherwise, it is okay to play to our strengths, including interior play. Other teams are not built to deal with that and we can exploit it, including by fouling out key opposing players and getting into the double-bonus early. This. See: Gonzaga 2019: 1st in KenPom Offensive Efficiency, 265th in 3PA/FGA. Tennessee 2019: 3rd in KenPom OE, 324th in 3PA/FGA In fact, only 3 of the top 10 most efficient KenPom offenses were in the top 100 in three point attempts as a total percentage of FG attempts. Focus on what you do well.
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Nov 19, 2019 11:18:44 GMT -5
I agree with this. If we are scoring above 35% on three point shooting, we need to shoot from outside but when scoring at below that rate, high percentage 2 point shots with a higher probability of getting fouled make more sense. If Yurtseven is making more than 50% of his twos and getting fouled frequently that is a winning strategy. Also we appear to be more successful getting offensive rebounds when we are near the rim then on the jacked up threes we have been missing. If our big or bigs are not scoring more than 50% on the close in twos then we have a problem unless we get more than 50% of those offensive rebounds. If Qudus is playing and misses he needs to get his own rebound and take another shot or get fouled to help the team!
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,932
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 19, 2019 11:46:04 GMT -5
Which set of bigs in the conference are you worried about Frazier? No set of bigs. But you still need a backup big in this conference. Getting experience in the OOC is critical. Now if Q shows no improvement over the next 6 weeks, maybe his minutes are more limited come January. But this is the time to find out - even against Texas, Duke/Cal, etc. Wahab will always be the backup big but does that mean he needs to play over 13 minutes per game? I think we'd all agree that LeBlanc needs to play more than the 19 minutes per game he's averaging now or the season-high of 22 he played in the last game right? So the question has to be who will lose minutes to allow LeBlanc more time?
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Nov 19, 2019 12:01:28 GMT -5
You need three point shooters to keep defenses honest, even if your aim is to feed your bigs.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,329
|
Post by prhoya on Nov 19, 2019 12:08:57 GMT -5
A great player at any level can "take you far and threaten teams that are supposedly untouchable at the NCAA level." Using outliers like Zion Williamson and 7'6 Tacko Fall demonstrate my point (not to mention Williamson had a good game despite Fall anyway). And, in that game Zion Williamson went 3-7 from three point range, whereas Fall went 0-0. In the modern game, having a player who doesn't shoot threes at all is a liability. It doesn't mean that type of player isn't useful, but it limits their offensive potential. Disagree with the example. In that game, Fall was called for very questionable fouls, which limited him to 25 minutes, while Williamson played 40 minutes. The final score was 77-76. Duke could not stop Tacko and won because the refs stopped Tacko. Btw, using Zion is also a bad example because he was a generational talent at the college level. To compare/contrast to Tacko's style, I would use someone more familiar to us: Jessie Govan. A player like Tacko has a very successful place in the college game and Tacko's game has translated into a spot in an NBA roster. Jessie? He also had a successful college career, but his exceptional 3-pt shooting did not get him into the NBA (yet). You keep mentioning the "modern game." What you keep missing is that the NBA's and CBK's game is not the same. A center who does not shoot 3s can be very successful in college. Tacko did not need to be a 3-pt shooter to have a successful college career and make the NBA. Don't get me wrong: if you can have both skills, it would be great (what I think of Omer), but not having one of the two skills will not make you a less successful CBK player.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 19, 2019 12:15:42 GMT -5
I agree with this. If we are scoring above 35% on three point shooting, we need to shoot from outside but when scoring at below that rate, high percentage 2 point shots with a higher probability of getting fouled make more sense. If Yurtseven is making more than 50% of his twos and getting fouled frequently that is a winning strategy. Also we appear to be more successful getting offensive rebounds when we are near the rim then on the jacked up threes we have been missing. If our big or bigs are not scoring more than 50% on the close in twos then we have a problem unless we get more than 50% of those offensive rebounds. If Qudus is playing and misses he needs to get his own rebound and take another shot or get fouled to help the team! Not only that but it puts the opposing team in foul trouble and also can lead to free throw disparity
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 19, 2019 12:47:45 GMT -5
A great player at any level can "take you far and threaten teams that are supposedly untouchable at the NCAA level." Using outliers like Zion Williamson and 7'6 Tacko Fall demonstrate my point (not to mention Williamson had a good game despite Fall anyway). And, in that game Zion Williamson went 3-7 from three point range, whereas Fall went 0-0. In the modern game, having a player who doesn't shoot threes at all is a liability. It doesn't mean that type of player isn't useful, but it limits their offensive potential. Disagree with the example. In that game, Fall was called for very questionable fouls, which limited him to 25 minutes, while Williamson played 40 minutes. The final score was 77-76. Duke could not stop Tacko and won because the refs stopped Tacko. Btw, using Zion is also a bad example because he was a generational talent at the college level. To compare/contrast to Tacko's style, I would use someone more familiar to us: Jessie Govan. A player like Tacko has a very successful place in the college game and Tacko's game has translated into a spot in an NBA roster. Jessie? He also had a successful college career, but his exceptional 3-pt shooting did not get him into the NBA (yet). You keep mentioning the "modern game." What you keep missing is that the NBA's and CBK's game is not the same. A center who does not shoot 3s can be very successful in college. Tacko did not need to be a 3-pt shooter to have a successful college career and make the NBA. Don't get me wrong: if you can have both skills, it would be great (what I think of Omer), but not having one of the two skills will not make you a less successful CBK player. Fall shot 74% from the field with an eFG of 74%. Where are the 3pt assassins who can come close to that?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Nov 19, 2019 14:06:54 GMT -5
Disagree with the example. In that game, Fall was called for very questionable fouls, which limited him to 25 minutes, while Williamson played 40 minutes. The final score was 77-76. Duke could not stop Tacko and won because the refs stopped Tacko. Btw, using Zion is also a bad example because he was a generational talent at the college level. To compare/contrast to Tacko's style, I would use someone more familiar to us: Jessie Govan. A player like Tacko has a very successful place in the college game and Tacko's game has translated into a spot in an NBA roster. Jessie? He also had a successful college career, but his exceptional 3-pt shooting did not get him into the NBA (yet). You keep mentioning the "modern game." What you keep missing is that the NBA's and CBK's game is not the same. A center who does not shoot 3s can be very successful in college. Tacko did not need to be a 3-pt shooter to have a successful college career and make the NBA. Don't get me wrong: if you can have both skills, it would be great (what I think of Omer), but not having one of the two skills will not make you a less successful CBK player. I don't think we actually disagree very much. I agree that there is a wide difference between the NBA and the college game. There is definitely a role for a strong big. There reason I took issue with the Fall/Zion example is that it is relying on two extremely abnormal players. As you say, Zion is a generational talent. And Tacko Fall has generational height you simply aren't going to see very often. So, to use either of those guys as an example is fun, but really anecdotal and not indicative of much (which is why I probably should have said that to begin with). Of course, any big who can shoot 2's at 70% plus will be fantastic. But, to answer professorhoya, there were literally two guys whose eFG% was above 70% last year - Fall and Zion. That's it. In 2018, Isaiah Brock from Oakland was the only one with an eFG% over 70. In 2017, there were three. And usually, these guys aren't playing for high majors - in the last ten years, literally only Zion and two players from Ohio State had over 70% eFG. Everyone else above 70% was from a mid-major or below. And that's the point. If you don't have Tacko Fall or Zion coming through the door, you're not going to shoot 75% from two. That doesn't mean guys who don't shoot threes aren't useful (indeed, LeBlanc had a leading eFG% for our team last year, at 64.4, and he did not take many threes), but shooting threes is a major part of the modern game, and to deny that is simply ignoring the evolution of the game. That said, I agree that there's a role for a really good big man, I just don't see why we have a big man who CAN shoot threes (Yurtseven), and instead he's just parked in the post.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 19, 2019 15:14:38 GMT -5
Disagree with the example. In that game, Fall was called for very questionable fouls, which limited him to 25 minutes, while Williamson played 40 minutes. The final score was 77-76. Duke could not stop Tacko and won because the refs stopped Tacko. Btw, using Zion is also a bad example because he was a generational talent at the college level. To compare/contrast to Tacko's style, I would use someone more familiar to us: Jessie Govan. A player like Tacko has a very successful place in the college game and Tacko's game has translated into a spot in an NBA roster. Jessie? He also had a successful college career, but his exceptional 3-pt shooting did not get him into the NBA (yet). You keep mentioning the "modern game." What you keep missing is that the NBA's and CBK's game is not the same. A center who does not shoot 3s can be very successful in college. Tacko did not need to be a 3-pt shooter to have a successful college career and make the NBA. Don't get me wrong: if you can have both skills, it would be great (what I think of Omer), but not having one of the two skills will not make you a less successful CBK player. I don't think we actually disagree very much. I agree that there is a wide difference between the NBA and the college game. There is definitely a role for a strong big. There reason I took issue with the Fall/Zion example is that it is relying on two extremely abnormal players. As you say, Zion is a generational talent. And Tacko Fall has generational height you simply aren't going to see very often. So, to use either of those guys as an example is fun, but really anecdotal and not indicative of much (which is why I probably should have said that to begin with). Of course, any big who can shoot 2's at 70% plus will be fantastic. But, to answer professorhoya, there were literally two guys whose eFG% was above 70% last year - Fall and Zion. That's it. In 2018, Isaiah Brock from Oakland was the only one with an eFG% over 70. In 2017, there were three. And usually, these guys aren't playing for high majors - in the last ten years, literally only Zion and two players from Ohio State had over 70% eFG. Everyone else above 70% was from a mid-major or below. And that's the point. If you don't have Tacko Fall or Zion coming through the door, you're not going to shoot 75% from two. That doesn't mean guys who don't shoot threes aren't useful (indeed, LeBlanc had a leading eFG% for our team last year, at 64.4, and he did not take many threes), but shooting threes is a major part of the modern game, and to deny that is simply ignoring the evolution of the game. That said, I agree that there's a role for a really good big man, I just don't see why we have a big man who CAN shoot threes (Yurtseven), and instead he's just parked in the post. Your position was that the big man was dead in college basketball. Taco Fall was brought in to show that a big man in the college game can help his team more than hold their own with any team in the tournament. We never took a position that 3pts aren’t part of the modern game.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Nov 19, 2019 15:29:44 GMT -5
No set of bigs. But you still need a backup big in this conference. Getting experience in the OOC is critical. Now if Q shows no improvement over the next 6 weeks, maybe his minutes are more limited come January. But this is the time to find out - even against Texas, Duke/Cal, etc. Wahab will always be the backup big but does that mean he needs to play over 13 minutes per game? I think we'd all agree that LeBlanc needs to play more than the 19 minutes per game he's averaging now or the season-high of 22 he played in the last game right? So the question has to be who will lose minutes to allow LeBlanc more time? November and December are when Wahab SHOULD be getting minutes, to see if he can develop into a contributor for January and February. I know we may very well need OOC results, but you also need to develop your younger guys as well. As I said above, if Q does not show development in the next few weeks, he becomes a situational sub - brief breaks for Yurtseven, foul trouble, etc. As for Josh, I agree that we need him to play more minutes(although he has been as careless with the ball as some of the others so far, which is not consistent with his play last season). But not specifically in place of Wahab - Josh can play the 5 for a minute or two as a change of pace, but not long stretches. Patrick may have to knock a few minutes off a couple of the 3's and 4's to do that.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,932
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 19, 2019 17:27:14 GMT -5
Wahab will always be the backup big but does that mean he needs to play over 13 minutes per game? I think we'd all agree that LeBlanc needs to play more than the 19 minutes per game he's averaging now or the season-high of 22 he played in the last game right? So the question has to be who will lose minutes to allow LeBlanc more time? November and December are when Wahab SHOULD be getting minutes, to see if he can develop into a contributor for January and February. I know we may very well need OOC results, but you also need to develop your younger guys as well. As I said above, if Q does not show development in the next few weeks, he becomes a situational sub - brief breaks for Yurtseven, foul trouble, etc. As for Josh, I agree that we need him to play more minutes(although he has been as careless with the ball as some of the others so far, which is not consistent with his play last season). But not specifically in place of Wahab - Josh can play the 5 for a minute or two as a change of pace, but not long stretches. Patrick may have to knock a few minutes off a couple of the 3's and 4's to do that. Fair enough, you think Wahab should continue to get 13+ minutes per game, I disagree with that... I think this is the time of year to develop a core rotation, I also think a change of pace could be a nice look for this team long term...
|
|
smokeyjack
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,300
|
Post by smokeyjack on Nov 19, 2019 17:28:18 GMT -5
Prob should start another entire thread on this big man subject, but Fall and other bigs are pretty much outliers. Today’s college game is predicated on 3s, defending the 3, getting to line and TOs. Offensive post play is a complete afterthought in cbk and nba.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,329
|
Post by prhoya on Nov 19, 2019 17:34:05 GMT -5
Prob should start another entire thread on this big man subject, but Fall and other bigs are pretty much outliers. Today’s college game is predicated on 3s, defending the 3, getting to line and TOs. Offensive post play is a complete afterthought in cbk and nba. Disagree. See, Omer's double doubles
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Nov 19, 2019 17:47:29 GMT -5
Your position was that the big man was dead in college basketball. Taco Fall was brought in to show that a big man in the college game can help his team more than hold their own with any team in the tournament. We never took a position that 3pts aren’t part of the modern game. You are responding to a straw man. I never said that "the big man was dead in college basketball." Rather, I said, "I hate generalizing, but I really think HoyaTalk has a tendency to overestimate the role of the big man in college basketball in 2019." Indeed, I originally made the comment in relation to defense, not offense - that fears of having to defend opposing bigs in the post were not warranted. The real problem with bigs is usually their defensive liability in not being able to be quick enough to defend pick and roll offense. There is definitely an offensive role for them in the college game (which I said previously), though post-ups are among the least efficient types of shots in basketball. Yurtseven has the skill level to probably pull it off in many instances; Wahab does not yet.
|
|
Omega
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 556
|
Post by Omega on Nov 19, 2019 18:17:18 GMT -5
I'm back. It appears that Pat is using players who are showing something in practice. We haven't seen Wilson or Ig yet. Sometimes it takes a while for guys to adjust to the game at the next level. Maybe Q is showing post moves in practice, so he is getting run and post feeds. Yes we like to win all our games, but finishing high in the BE is more important. I say let them work out the links. We wanted a tougher schedule, and with that comes losses.
|
|