MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Dec 12, 2020 19:47:15 GMT -5
I keep coming back to this quote, which I really hope was taken out of context. I don't blame Patrick entirely for last night's loss, but 3-point defense has been a glaring weakness for the last three years. It's hard to imagine allowing teams - especially Villanova, known for great 3-point shooting - to take those shots at will. All he basically meant was no matter what shot they are taking it needs to be contested. 2, or 3 the goal is to make them take tough contested shots. It's pretty amazing how folks can turn mundane coach talk into a major controversy. "He doen't get it. He doesn't understand the game like me, my fellow bloggers, and message board members." I've been following college basketball for an eternity because its my favorite sport. And not only have I spent probably way too much time on Hoya message boards, I used to also make myself at home way too often on other teams' sites at one time. And during all that I have never witnessed the questioning and second-guessing of every move by a coach as I have seen Hoya fans when it comes to Ewing. This is not hyperbole. It isn't just second-guessing him, Hoya fans seem to be outright challenging whether he has an IQ above single digits. Its nauseating to see all these folks, from almost day one, act as if they all know basketball better than Ewing. There was no honeymoon either despite the revisionism they like to spew. From the very first month of the very first season the knives were out.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Dec 12, 2020 19:47:26 GMT -5
Looking at the game once more I may have been a tad harsh in claiming the second half of basketball to be the worse 20 minutes I have seen the Hoyas play in a long time. It was an inexcusably incompetent showing but not the worse. In fact with 5 and a half minutes left the game was pretty much tied. The Hoyas failed to score down the stretch to get a win. That being said the previous 14 and a half minutes is where the game got away from them. For good reason people tend to focus on the defense effort over that time but truth be told the Hoyas could have withstood the failings on that end if their offense had held up half as well in the second half in terms of aggression, execution, confidence. Ideally as a team you would want to put up the same amount of points in the second half as you did the first (I imagine being able to keep up the scoring onslaught despite the adjustments the opponents make is the best type of feeling). But even settling for scoring anywhere between 26 to 30 more points in the final 20 minutes likely give the Hoyas the win.
Two seasons ago at home Gtown had Villanova down in a similar situation although in a less dramatic fashion in the first half. Villanova came out to play in the second half but the Hoyas were able to win because they were able to answer and counter on offense. Yesterday the Hoyas did anything but. Were there adjustments made by Wright? Yes. But Villanova’s defense wasn’t suffocating enough to justify that meek offensive output by Georgetown. The Hoyas just displayed a lack of mental toughness. You can blame that on the coaches or the players or both. But when Villanova tied that game up you could see the air deflate in our guys. They didn’t give up, they had still some fight in them. But they got tight, perhaps a little shook.
It didn’t help that Nova tied the game up so quickly. If you have an opponent climbing back from a big deficit you want them to have to do it over a long stretch of time, hoping to at the very least to have them exhausted towards the end of the game because of how much effort it took to even things. However instead of getting that tie with 4 minutes left, the Wildcats got it with 14 minutes to go which spelled trouble (it was noticeable in the Hoyas’ body language). If the Hoyas were able to maintain relatively the same lead by the first or even second official timeout of the half then that could have taken the wind out of Villanova’s sails mentally. But the Wildcats were able to demonstrate their character because the Hoyas didn’t have that mental toughness and confidence to match them basket to basket.
Viewing it a second time I concur with others that Jalen Harris unfortunately was the culprit for helping Villanova achieve that momentum switch by badly allowing three open three-pointers. I have to say I truly doubt the coaching staff instructs him to slide down into the paint to help out when two of his teammates are already guarding the opponent dribbling the ball near the baseline. But pretty much everybody made a bone-headed play on the defensive side during that half.
But again where was the offense? There were some unfortunate turnovers and many near misses, such as when Dante drove to the basket and his shot rolled out. Pickett had his share of close misses too but they at least were all good shots. If I have any criticism of him it would be he wasn’t looking for his shot enough off isolation, on postups or by moving around constantly without the ball to get a better opening. The worse culprit was likely Qudus who hasn’t yet hit his stride this year. There was no one on Villanova who could guard him but he missed half-hearted half-hooks that just reached the rim but went no further. He is lacking the fluidity he demonstrated as a frosh. As much as I have been impressed with Blair so far and as excited as I am over how much of a legit pro prospect Pickett is beginning to look like, to me Qudus is still the key. I still believe he is the team’s best player. He needs to demonstrate that more on the boards, be as effective in the paint on offense like he was a season and move his feet a little quicker on D.
If everything goes well this season there will be a second game against Villanova. Now that this team knows it can play with the Wildcats the question becomes will it be able to put together a whole game the second time around.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Dec 12, 2020 19:57:11 GMT -5
The only difference defensively between the 1st and 2nd half was Nova made their wide open 3s vs. missing them. At no point did we force them to take a shot they didn't want to take. Also who took the 3s for Nova shifted. In the first half it was Samuels / JRE, then it became Gillespie / Daniels / Moore. Adjustments by Wright and no response to take away the other teams best players. THIS. This is a very important difference though. If Jermaine Samuels took 39 threes yesterday, he's maybe hitting 15 of them 20% of the time. If him, JRE, Dixon and Slater were the ones taking those shots, we are looking much better. But Gilespie and Daniels got hot and were 6/7 from deep in the second half. We left their best shooters open and they made us pay. What you don't seem to understand (or refuse to understand) is that the point some of us are making is that Ewing wants his players to guard ALL of Villanova capable shooters on the perimeter. You actually think Ewing has a game plan in which he wants Samuels taking open jump shots? The law of averages tends to catch up doing something like that. More importantly do you think Ewing's defensive scheme was to leave Gillespie and Daniels open? You think he is that ignorant? Our players made bonehead decisions and got lost on their defensive assignments. Now we can argue until the end of time how much coaching is to blame for upperclassmen not knowing where to be when it comes to defensive schemes but lets not waste a moment more acting as if leaving those guys open was part of some strategy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2020 20:03:14 GMT -5
All he basically meant was no matter what shot they are taking it needs to be contested. 2, or 3 the goal is to make them take tough contested shots. It's pretty amazing how folks can turn mundane coach talk into a major controversy. "He doen't get it. He doesn't understand the game like me, my fellow bloggers, and message board members." Before this comment, PE talked about "guarding the paint but also making sure to get back out to the shooters" Do you think it's a good strategy against a Villanova team where just about half their shots are threes? I can only speak for myself but I suspect this is what folks are upset/concerned about with this comment... I didn't care that Coppin State took 38 threes and won't care if St. John's takes 50 on Sunday, however when they play Creighton I will care. The Opponent has to matter in the discussion in my view... Not really because both of those are true statements. He also commented that we "sunk in too deep" at times and, "made some mistakes in our rotations" that allowed them to get free. The quote is being interpreted as his strategy was to let them shoot and when you put all of those quotes together you can see that's not the case. You could be right, but I don't think that's what the majority of folks are upset with what you mentioned because most haven't seen the presser and are commenting on just the tweet.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Dec 12, 2020 20:17:00 GMT -5
All he basically meant was no matter what shot they are taking it needs to be contested. 2, or 3 the goal is to make them take tough contested shots. It's pretty amazing how folks can turn mundane coach talk into a major controversy. "He doen't get it. He doesn't understand the game like me, my fellow bloggers, and message board members." Before this comment, PE talked about "guarding the paint but also making sure to get back out to the shooters" Do you think it's a good strategy against a Villanova team where just about half their shots are threes? That type of talk typically means having your big guys who can rim protect be mindful of doing just that in the game but also getting back out on the perimeter if a ball is swung out towards their man. You are squandering the shot blocking abilities of Wahab, Ighoefe, Pickett, etc if you just want them staying up on the three-point line looking at the players they are guarding while keeping their backs towards the basket at all times. If that is the style of defense you want to see against Nova, no help defense whatsoever, then I suppose we should just play small ball against them the entire game. Of course this plays into Villanova's favor because it takes Wahab and thus our points in the paint out of the equation. To me it is all about which team can best exploit its strengths.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Dec 12, 2020 20:19:33 GMT -5
All he basically meant was no matter what shot they are taking it needs to be contested. 2, or 3 the goal is to make them take tough contested shots. It's pretty amazing how folks can turn mundane coach talk into a major controversy. "He doen't get it. He doesn't understand the game like me, my fellow bloggers, and message board members." I've been following college basketball for an eternity because its my favorite sport. And not only have I spent probably way too much time on Hoya message boards, I used to also make myself at home way too often on other teams' sites at one time. And during all that I have never witnessed the questioning and second-guessing of every move by a coach as I have seen Hoya fans when it comes to Ewing. This is not hyperbole. It isn't just second-guessing him, Hoya fans seem to be outright challenging whether he has an IQ above single digits. Its nauseating to see all these folks, from almost day one, act as if they all know basketball better than Ewing. There was no honeymoon either despite the revisionism they like to spew. From the very first month of the very first season the knives were out. You also probably have not seen many coaches as terrible as this one.
|
|
hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,429
|
Post by hoopsmccan on Dec 12, 2020 20:54:03 GMT -5
All he basically meant was no matter what shot they are taking it needs to be contested. 2, or 3 the goal is to make them take tough contested shots. It's pretty amazing how folks can turn mundane coach talk into a major controversy. "He doen't get it. He doesn't understand the game like me, my fellow bloggers, and message board members." I've been following college basketball for an eternity because its my favorite sport. And not only have I spent probably way too much time on Hoya message boards, I used to also make myself at home way too often on other teams' sites at one time. And during all that I have never witnessed the questioning and second-guessing of every move by a coach as I have seen Hoya fans when it comes to Ewing. This is not hyperbole. It isn't just second-guessing him, Hoya fans seem to be outright challenging whether he has an IQ above single digits. Its nauseating to see all these folks, from almost day one, act as if they all know basketball better than Ewing. There was no honeymoon either despite the revisionism they like to spew. From the very first month of the very first season the knives were out. It was an interesting mix from the outset. In one camp, you had strange bedfellows - a small contingent of pro-JTIII people and a larger contingent of ‘need a more robust coaching search’ / ‘anti-Thompson influence’ folks. There was another camp that was all in on Ewing, no matter what, as the programs most decorated alum. These preconceived ideas, before Ewing coached a game, dictated these posters’ comments. And maybe most posters actually fall in the middle of the spectrum, but the conversation has often been dominated by the extremes, especially after a loss, where we get like 97 negative posts. hm
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Dec 12, 2020 21:14:02 GMT -5
This is a very important difference though. If Jermaine Samuels took 39 threes yesterday, he's maybe hitting 15 of them 20% of the time. If him, JRE, Dixon and Slater were the ones taking those shots, we are looking much better. But Gilespie and Daniels got hot and were 6/7 from deep in the second half. We left their best shooters open and they made us pay. What you don't seem to understand (or refuse to understand) is that the point some of us are making is that Ewing wants his players to guard ALL of Villanova capable shooters on the perimeter. You actually think Ewing has a game plan in which he wants Samuels taking open jump shots? The law of averages tends to catch up doing something like that. More importantly do you think Ewing's defensive scheme was to leave Gillespie and Daniels open? You think he is that ignorant? Our players made bonehead decisions and got lost on their defensive assignments. Now we can argue until the end of time how much coaching is to blame for upperclassmen not knowing where to be when it comes to defensive schemes but lets not waste a moment more acting as if leaving those guys open was part of some strategy. I don't think you understand the point I'm making which is that opponents good shooters consistently get open against us. Our three point defense was in the 300's last year. Right now we are in the 130's, but UMBC and Coppin State out that number much more in our favor with them just missing a ton of open looks. At this rate, I don't think it's going to be much better. Our next opponent isn't typically the team to take advantage of these defensive lapses, but teams in our conference can and will. So if you are asking if I think the issues defensively are schematic, I think the answer is an easy yes. The player excuse can't be used when these problems have been consistent throughout change. Now, last night, I thought Jalen gave up two of Gillespie's three three's which gave Nova their big run to tie the game. The forced rotation n the hard hedge, I thought, was at fault for the last one. Losing a great shooter like Gillespie that frequently in such a short period of time is inexcusable. Also, as a coach, of course you don't want to not give up any points. But you know there are guys who will get in the lane and you have guys who you can and can't rotate off of. The hard hedge requires a solid rotation and you should emphasize that you CAN'T rotate off of Gillespie or Daniels. You just can't. That's a recipe for disaster. Even a late contest on those guys is far too late vs. against someone like Samuels, he's not a good of a shooter and has a slower release, so a late contest can effect his shot. The hard hedge requires a rotation into the lane. Someone has to rotate. You need to make sure that you don't leave their great shooters for too long. We left Daniels and Gillespie open for too long. Some of that is on the players, some of that is on the scheme. Solely blaming the players for problems that have been consistent is completely unfair. Of course Ewing didn't walk into the film room and tell his guys that we need to leave these two open. Of course the scouting report didn't say leave Gillespie and Daniels open. But, when a scheme requires rotating off of shooters to tag the big man rolling in the lane, these problems emerge. It's on the scheme, and I think if we want to effectively run the hard hedge, we have to rotate off of the right guys and have a guy who is an effective last line of defense (Josh was, Pickett isn't) who can guard the bigs rolling and force a miss.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 12, 2020 23:07:21 GMT -5
Before this comment, PE talked about "guarding the paint but also making sure to get back out to the shooters" Do you think it's a good strategy against a Villanova team where just about half their shots are threes? That type of talk typically means having your big guys who can rim protect be mindful of doing just that in the game but also getting back out on the perimeter if a ball is swung out towards their man. You are squandering the shot blocking abilities of Wahab, Ighoefe, Pickett, etc if you just want them staying up on the three-point line looking at the players they are guarding while keeping their backs towards the basket at all times. If that is the style of defense you want to see against Nova, no help defense whatsoever, then I suppose we should just play small ball against them the entire game. Of course this plays into Villanova's favor because it takes Wahab and thus our points in the paint out of the equation. To me it is all about which team can best exploit its strengths. I think guarding the paint is different from protecting the rim, plus it was much more on the guards not staying with their men, the bigs were not an issue in my view...
|
|
s4hoyas
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,475
|
Post by s4hoyas on Dec 12, 2020 23:26:39 GMT -5
When our guards left their men to "help inside" (which was unnecessary), their men were repeatedly left open for three and knocked most of them down and that was the difference in the second half...meanwhile, they stayed on their men on the perimeter and it caused us to become impatient and to miss many the same shots we made in the first half...JUST STAY ON YOUR MAN! (especially the known 3 point shooters...)
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,358
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 12, 2020 23:48:33 GMT -5
When our guards left their men to "help inside" (which was unnecessary), their men were repeatedly left open for three and knocked most of them down and that was the difference in the second half...meanwhile, they stayed on their men on the perimeter and it caused us to become impatient and to miss many the same shots we made in the first half...JUST STAY ON YOUR MAN! (especially the known 3 point shooters...) This is what we have seen for four years now under Ewing and staff: terrible in getting steals and terrible in having it stolen. Our defense will improve by not leaving shooters wide open while attempting those steals, which obviously hasn’t worked.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlemania on Dec 13, 2020 2:04:52 GMT -5
Last night's game showed that the roster has upside. I don't know that the same can be said of Patrick. So Patrick had nothing to do with the 18 point lead that we had? Because a HOF coach out-adjusted him, there is no upside? Ok... They blew the 18 point lead and were slaughtered after the first 15 minutes, last I checked. And read more carefully -- I didn't say Patrick had no upside, I only said I wasn't sure. The reality is that he's a .500 coach after three years with no tournament appearances. That counts, although I agree it's not conclusive. Also, as in the Navy game, I didn't see a lot of fight from the players when things got tough. Instead, I saw a lot of bad body language and no real coherence to what they were doing, particularly on offense. I hope it's better tonight.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 14, 2020 7:25:24 GMT -5
I was proud of this performance by the Hoyas. They came out ready to play and competed against a good team. Q needs to convert a few of those inside looks in the second half, or sell the foul. We need to have less scoring droughts, blah blah blah. But that was not a bad effort at all. I do not know what people expect.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,224
|
Post by hoyarooter on Dec 14, 2020 20:59:24 GMT -5
The first half was great, but it was fools gold. The color man (I don't recall who was announcing the game) commented that we were playing a defense of hope. Leave the shooters open and hope they miss. For most of the first half, they missed. Then they stopped missing. I thought our defense was consistently bad, and in the second half we paid for it. On the other end, I thought Nova absolutely ratcheted up their defense in the second half, and our good shots disappeared. The second half was a nightmare.
|
|