hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Feb 1, 2021 11:57:10 GMT -5
I didn't know it existed in 2019. I thought last year was the first year they used that.
It is true and interesting that last year was the best of the Ewing era by all the computer metrics. Of course, it was the year that he mismanaged the team so badly that he only had 6 players and was the year that he did the least amount of in-game coaching since he had so few options. Of course, last year was hardly good just the best of this failed era. And, this year we are right back to terrible. Three out of four years have been very bad and one was just pretty bad. Seems like last year was the exception and maybe the best we can hope for with this guy.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Feb 1, 2021 12:07:41 GMT -5
I enjoy seeing the young guys too, but winning is way more important IMHO. The idea that stealing 6 minutes from Blair and giving them to Berger or 5-8 minutes from Pickett or Bile and giving them to Sibley will have a material impact on the team's success next year seems fanciful, to me. And doing so most likely costs us a game like this. Seems to me like some people are more concerned with trying to proactively take any pro-Ewing defenses that may arise 12 months from now off the table--in other words, trying to stamp out "this team is too young and inexperienced, Ewing needs another 1-2 seasons to be properly evaluated" takes. But while I get that those takes will be annoying, and I get that most have thrown in the towel on this season, I think if you really stopped and thought about it you might realize that getting a few extra minutes for guys at the end of our bench isn't going to significantly change our fortunes for next year. My (perhaps somewhat politically incorrect) opinion is that either we need to add some older, better players to next year's roster, or we're in for another rough ride. Doing that is going to mean that some of the current underclassmen probably won't be back. When you remember that by most people's opinions most of these guys were not high major players coming out of high school, it isn't the worst thing for the team or the player. With that in mind, the calculus for minutes distribution changes. This year's 10th-13th men are not necessarily next year's rotation players. And when it comes to acquiring talent, one of the best things we can do is win games. Long losing streaks and an awful record are not going to help us bring in the caliber of player we need to get back to competing. That's not to say that a narrow win over a bubble team like PC is going to have players lining up, but if we can avoid being laughably/embarrassingly bad I think that does make a difference. And given that we've been competitive in most of our games this season, I do think that's possible. Excellent points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2021 13:18:48 GMT -5
I didn't know it existed in 2019. I thought last year was the first year they used that. It is true and interesting that last year was the best of the Ewing era by all the computer metrics. Of course, it was the year that he mismanaged the team so badly that he only had 6 players and was the year that he did the least amount of in-game coaching since he had so few options. Of course, last year was hardly good just the best of this failed era. And, this year we are right back to terrible. Three out of four years have been very bad and one was just pretty bad. Seems like last year was the exception and maybe the best we can hope for with this guy. If you press the "quote" button you can respond to me directly. Finishing .500 in a power conference starting 3 freshman isn't an example of bad coaching. No coach will say that. You yourself didn't label it as such in your earlier post. The following year with a much more limited roster we performed better according to the computer rankings. Now when confronted with that fact you've suddenly revised your earlier evaluation of the previous season from *mid to "very bad." 🤔 It's kind of ironic that you complained about cherry picking stats and making excuses, but now you're cherry picking stats (rpi??) and making excuses for why the numbers say what they say. It wasn't that he coached them up. It was that he benefited from losing 4-5 starters and having a less talented roster? Sorry, that makes no sense.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 743
|
Post by rhw485 on Feb 1, 2021 13:25:40 GMT -5
I enjoy seeing the young guys too, but winning is way more important IMHO. The idea that stealing 6 minutes from Blair and giving them to Berger or 5-8 minutes from Pickett or Bile and giving them to Sibley will have a material impact on the team's success next year seems fanciful, to me. And doing so most likely costs us a game like this. Seems to me like some people are more concerned with trying to proactively take any pro-Ewing defenses that may arise 12 months from now off the table--in other words, trying to stamp out "this team is too young and inexperienced, Ewing needs another 1-2 seasons to be properly evaluated" takes. But while I get that those takes will be annoying, and I get that most have thrown in the towel on this season, I think if you really stopped and thought about it you might realize that getting a few extra minutes for guys at the end of our bench isn't going to significantly change our fortunes for next year. My (perhaps somewhat politically incorrect) opinion is that either we need to add some older, better players to next year's roster, or we're in for another rough ride. Doing that is going to mean that some of the current underclassmen probably won't be back. When you remember that by most people's opinions most of these guys were not high major players coming out of high school, it isn't the worst thing for the team or the player. With that in mind, the calculus for minutes distribution changes. This year's 10th-13th men are not necessarily next year's rotation players. And when it comes to acquiring talent, one of the best things we can do is win games. Long losing streaks and an awful record are not going to help us bring in the caliber of player we need to get back to competing. That's not to say that a narrow win over a bubble team like PC is going to have players lining up, but if we can avoid being laughably/embarrassingly bad I think that does make a difference. And given that we've been competitive in most of our games this season, I do think that's possible. While I'm definitely in the "find 5 minutes camp", this argument is completely fair. My counter is what we saw from TJ Berger. He doesn't play the first 3 games, gets garbage time against Coppin and Nova. Then suddenly he gets put into the St Johns, and that really looked like it was just out of frustration w Dante in the moment, I'm not buying he suddenly had an amazing week of practice that earned him rotation minutes. And then he shows you something, that his shooting skill translates and he can make the right pass most times and at least tries on defense. That the moments aren't entirely too big for him. And now maybe it doesn't seem so crazy to think he could at least be in the rotation next year. Sure part of the 5 minutes ask is to help these guys get acclimated to BE competition (particularly for Sibley and he's getting his minutes now so less of a big deal), but it's also trying to understand and evaluate what you have in your players that will be here next year (or whether they should be here next year as you talk about offseason changes). Yes of course, if Clark plays in a few games and shows you no signs of doing anything, then you don't have to continue it. But I don't think you can simply know what a player will be from practice alone, and learning what you have for next year might even help dictate your offseason decisions. For those that argue practice time is enough to evaluate, I feel like we've seen multiple times in Ewing's tenure where he's slow to make rotation changes. LeBlanc didn't start for 8 games, don't tell me Mourning was outplaying him in practice. Malinowski was not a key part of the rotation until McClung got hurt. Terrell Allen and Jahvon Blair have shown they probably warranted more minutes before the great exodus. Simply put, the more information you gather, the better off you are. Yes winning is paramount but I think there's a way to find Clark a few min in the 1st half of games just to sanity check is there a skillset there to develop without tanking games.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Feb 1, 2021 13:59:36 GMT -5
I didn't know it existed in 2019. I thought last year was the first year they used that. It is true and interesting that last year was the best of the Ewing era by all the computer metrics. Of course, it was the year that he mismanaged the team so badly that he only had 6 players and was the year that he did the least amount of in-game coaching since he had so few options. Of course, last year was hardly good just the best of this failed era. And, this year we are right back to terrible. Three out of four years have been very bad and one was just pretty bad. Seems like last year was the exception and maybe the best we can hope for with this guy. Fyi If you press the "quote" button you can respond to me directly. Finishing .500 in a power conference starting 3 freshman isn't an example of bad coaching. No coach will say that. You yourself didn't label it as such in your earlier post. The following year with a much more limited roster he performed better. Now when confronted with that fact you've suddenly revised your earlier evaluation of the previous season from *mid to "very bad." 🤔 It's kind of ironic that you complained about cherry picking stats and making excuses, but now you're cherry picking stats (rpi??) and making excuses for why the numbers say what they say. It wasn't that he coached them up. It was that he benefited from losing 4-5 starters and having a less talented roster? Sorry, that makes no sense. 2019 was not a very good year no matter what the conference record was. He was fortunate the conference was bad when he had the three freshman starting. If you want to say last year was a success, go ahead but I'm not too sure many would agree. Clearly, I think he's a horrible coach and any decision he has to make is likely to be a bad one. So, having only 6 players helps him because it takes at least a couple of the big decisions - line up construction and in-game lineups - largely out of his hands (and even then, he made a mess of the few decisions he did make - see the Big East Tournament). In conference, both the offense and defense were terrible so whatever he was teaching in practice did not seem to be working. Frankly, I'm amazed that team ended up with as good a ranking as it did. What is the case for this guy? Where is the evidence of progress? The results are plainly bad. It seems as if the only mark in his favor is landing a very good recruit next year. But, we've already been cautioned that next year will be bad, too. At which point is it reasonable to expect some good results? I just don't understand how anyone could conduct a review of his performance and conclude that this has been a job well done and see reasons that improvement is likely. What else is there other than he's Patrick Ewing and an important Georgetown figure? Can anyone honestly say that if this was anyone else, he'd get the same kind of latitude?
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Feb 1, 2021 14:13:52 GMT -5
Fyi If you press the "quote" button you can respond to me directly. Finishing .500 in a power conference starting 3 freshman isn't an example of bad coaching. No coach will say that. You yourself didn't label it as such in your earlier post. The following year with a much more limited roster he performed better. Now when confronted with that fact you've suddenly revised your earlier evaluation of the previous season from *mid to "very bad." 🤔 It's kind of ironic that you complained about cherry picking stats and making excuses, but now you're cherry picking stats (rpi??) and making excuses for why the numbers say what they say. It wasn't that he coached them up. It was that he benefited from losing 4-5 starters and having a less talented roster? Sorry, that makes no sense. 2019 was not a very good year no matter what the conference record was. He was fortunate the conference was bad when he had the three freshman starting. If you want to say last year was a success, go ahead but I'm not too sure many would agree. Clearly, I think he's a horrible coach and any decision he has to make is likely to be a bad one. So, having only 6 players helps him because it takes at least a couple of the big decisions - line up construction and in-game lineups - largely out of his hands (and even then, he made a mess of the few decisions he did make - see the Big East Tournament). In conference, both the offense and defense were terrible so whatever he was teaching in practice did not seem to be working. Frankly, I'm amazed that team ended up with as good a ranking as it did. What is the case for this guy? Where is the evidence of progress? The results are plainly bad. It seems as if the only mark in his favor is landing a very good recruit next year. But, we've already been cautioned that next year will be bad, too. At which point is it reasonable to expect some good results? I just don't understand how anyone could conduct a review of his performance and conclude that this has been a job well done and see reasons that improvement is likely. What else is there other than he's Patrick Ewing and an important Georgetown figure? Can anyone honestly say that if this was anyone else, he'd get the same kind of latitude? Now, Come, come, Double97. You disappoint me. You get as much fulfillment out of Coach Ewing as I do, so why don't you admit it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2021 14:15:43 GMT -5
Fyi If you press the "quote" button you can respond to me directly. Finishing .500 in a power conference starting 3 freshman isn't an example of bad coaching. No coach will say that. You yourself didn't label it as such in your earlier post. The following year with a much more limited roster he performed better. Now when confronted with that fact you've suddenly revised your earlier evaluation of the previous season from *mid to "very bad." 🤔 It's kind of ironic that you complained about cherry picking stats and making excuses, but now you're cherry picking stats (rpi??) and making excuses for why the numbers say what they say. It wasn't that he coached them up. It was that he benefited from losing 4-5 starters and having a less talented roster? Sorry, that makes no sense. 2019 was not a very good year no matter what the conference record was. He was fortunate the conference was bad when he had the three freshman starting. If you want to say last year was a success, go ahead but I'm not too sure many would agree. Clearly, I think he's a horrible coach and any decision he has to make is likely to be a bad one. So, having only 6 players helps him because it takes at least a couple of the big decisions - line up construction and in-game lineups - largely out of his hands (and even then, he made a mess of the few decisions he did make - see the Big East Tournament). In conference, both the offense and defense were terrible so whatever he was teaching in practice did not seem to be working. Frankly, I'm amazed that team ended up with as good a ranking as it did. What is the case for this guy? Where is the evidence of progress? The results are plainly bad. It seems as if the only mark in his favor is landing a very good recruit next year. But, we've already been cautioned that next year will be bad, too. At which point is it reasonable to expect some good results? I just don't understand how anyone could conduct a review of his performance and conclude that this has been a job well done and see reasons that improvement is likely. What else is there other than he's Patrick Ewing and an important Georgetown figure? Can anyone honestly say that if this was anyone else, he'd get the same kind of latitude? This is really all it comes down to.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Feb 1, 2021 14:23:12 GMT -5
2019 was not a very good year no matter what the conference record was. He was fortunate the conference was bad when he had the three freshman starting. If you want to say last year was a success, go ahead but I'm not too sure many would agree. Clearly, I think he's a horrible coach and any decision he has to make is likely to be a bad one. So, having only 6 players helps him because it takes at least a couple of the big decisions - line up construction and in-game lineups - largely out of his hands (and even then, he made a mess of the few decisions he did make - see the Big East Tournament). In conference, both the offense and defense were terrible so whatever he was teaching in practice did not seem to be working. Frankly, I'm amazed that team ended up with as good a ranking as it did. What is the case for this guy? Where is the evidence of progress? The results are plainly bad. It seems as if the only mark in his favor is landing a very good recruit next year. But, we've already been cautioned that next year will be bad, too. At which point is it reasonable to expect some good results? I just don't understand how anyone could conduct a review of his performance and conclude that this has been a job well done and see reasons that improvement is likely. What else is there other than he's Patrick Ewing and an important Georgetown figure? Can anyone honestly say that if this was anyone else, he'd get the same kind of latitude? That's really all it comes down to. Yeah, this whole thing is about my very well supported opinion that he’s a horrible coach. He landed a good recruit but he/s done everything else very poorly. I don’t know how this can be disputed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2021 14:28:53 GMT -5
That's really all it comes down to. Yeah, this whole thing is about my very well supported opinion that he’s a horrible coach. He landed a good recruit but he/s done everything else very poorly. I don’t know how this can be disputed. Clearly, I think he's a horrible coach and any decision he has to make is likely to be a bad one. You're putting a lot of words in my mouth but the above quote is really all it comes down to and that's what drives your opinions. Georgetown could fire Ewing tomorrow and I'm not going to care one bit. I'm just trying to evaluate his performance in a fair and logical manner. When he's had a descent amount of talent his team has performed to level, so get some talent and who knows. Describing 8-8 in the BE starting 3 freshman as "very bad' is an absurd opinion.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Feb 1, 2021 14:44:05 GMT -5
Yeah, this whole thing is about my very well supported opinion that he’s a horrible coach. He landed a good recruit but he/s done everything else very poorly. I don’t know how this can be disputed. Clearly, I think he's a horrible coach and any decision he has to make is likely to be a bad one. You're putting a lot of words in my mouth but the above quote is really all it comes down to and that's what drives your opinions. Georgetown could fire Ewing tomorrow and I'm not going to care one bit. I'm just trying to evaluate his performance in a fair and logical manner. When he's had a descent amount of talent his team has performed to level, so get some talent and who knows. Describing 8-8 in the BE starting 3 freshman as "very bad' is an absurd opinion. My opinion was formed and continues to be driven by his horrible coaching. I had no preconceived notion of what kind of coach he'd be going in (though I was really hoping we'd do more of a search and hire a guy from outside the family so I was disappointed when he was hired). I now have watched 3.5 seasons of this and feel pretty strongly that he's awful with no reason to think he'll get any better. The 2019 team was a bad team in a bad conference. A typically bad DePaul team won 7 games that year. Winning 9 is not that much of an achievement. I guess I can give him credit for avoiding a complete disaster but that's it. Though there is no way to know, I'd bet that the same team would have been near the bottom of the Big East one year earlier or one year later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2021 14:52:55 GMT -5
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth but the above quote is really all it comes down to and that's what drives your opinions. Georgetown could fire Ewing tomorrow and I'm not going to care one bit. I'm just trying to evaluate his performance in a fair and logical manner. When he's had a descent amount of talent his team has performed to level, so get some talent and who knows. Describing 8-8 in the BE starting 3 freshman as "very bad' is an absurd opinion. My opinion was formed and continues to be driven by his horrible coaching. I had no preconceived notion of what kind of coach he'd be going in (though I was really hoping we'd do more of a search and hire a guy from outside the family so I was disappointed when he was hired). I now have watched 3.5 seasons of this and feel pretty strongly that he's awful with no reason to think he'll get any better. The 2019 team was a bad team in a bad conference. A typically bad DePaul team won 7 games that year. Winning 9 is not that much of an achievement. I guess I can give him credit for avoiding a complete disaster but that's it. Though there is no way to know, I'd bet that the same team would have been near the bottom of the Big East one year earlier or one year later. Yeah, and typically good teams like Xavier, Creighton, and Seton Hall had our same record. You see what I mean about how you're spinning this? They were tied for 3rd in the conference. It's a respectable showing for a young team. I don't understand why that's hard to admit, but you got it 97, we don't have to see things the same way.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Feb 1, 2021 15:07:26 GMT -5
My opinion was formed and continues to be driven by his horrible coaching. I had no preconceived notion of what kind of coach he'd be going in (though I was really hoping we'd do more of a search and hire a guy from outside the family so I was disappointed when he was hired). I now have watched 3.5 seasons of this and feel pretty strongly that he's awful with no reason to think he'll get any better. The 2019 team was a bad team in a bad conference. A typically bad DePaul team won 7 games that year. Winning 9 is not that much of an achievement. I guess I can give him credit for avoiding a complete disaster but that's it. Though there is no way to know, I'd bet that the same team would have been near the bottom of the Big East one year earlier or one year later. Yeah, and typically good teams like Xavier, Creighton, and Seton Hall had our same record. You see what I mean about how you're spinning this? They were tied for 3rd in the conference. It's a respectable showing for a young team. I don't understand why that's hard to admit, but you got it 97, we don't have to see things the same way. Typically good? Sure. Good that year? No It was a respectable record but built against ty competition. The same record the next year would have been an entirely different thing and, had it happened, I would not be saying the stuff I'm saying today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2021 15:14:02 GMT -5
Yeah, and typically good teams like Xavier, Creighton, and Seton Hall had our same record. You see what I mean about how you're spinning this? They were tied for 3rd in the conference. It's a respectable showing for a young team. I don't understand why that's hard to admit, but you got it 97, we don't have to see things the same way. Typically good? Sure. Good that year? No It was a respectable record but built against ty competition. The same record the next year would have been an entirely different thing and, had it happened, I would not be saying the stuff I'm saying today. Well, you're going to feel how you feel. I think most people on the board were happy with it, and the fan reaction online was generally positive from what I saw.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Feb 1, 2021 15:26:47 GMT -5
Typically good? Sure. Good that year? No It was a respectable record but built against ty competition. The same record the next year would have been an entirely different thing and, had it happened, I would not be saying the stuff I'm saying today. Well, you're going to feel how you feel. I think most people on the board were happy with it, and the fan reaction online was generally positive from what I saw. I was happy, too (except when I was at the DePaul game which was a debacle). It seemed like things were heading in the right direction. As it turns out. they weren't.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,042
|
Post by EtomicB on Feb 1, 2021 15:28:03 GMT -5
I enjoy seeing the young guys too, but winning is way more important IMHO. The idea that stealing 6 minutes from Blair and giving them to Berger or 5-8 minutes from Pickett or Bile and giving them to Sibley will have a material impact on the team's success next year seems fanciful, to me. And doing so most likely costs us a game like this. Seems to me like some people are more concerned with trying to proactively take any pro-Ewing defenses that may arise 12 months from now off the table--in other words, trying to stamp out "this team is too young and inexperienced, Ewing needs another 1-2 seasons to be properly evaluated" takes. But while I get that those takes will be annoying, and I get that most have thrown in the towel on this season, I think if you really stopped and thought about it you might realize that getting a few extra minutes for guys at the end of our bench isn't going to significantly change our fortunes for next year. My (perhaps somewhat politically incorrect) opinion is that either we need to add some older, better players to next year's roster, or we're in for another rough ride. Doing that is going to mean that some of the current underclassmen probably won't be back. When you remember that by most people's opinions most of these guys were not high major players coming out of high school, it isn't the worst thing for the team or the player. With that in mind, the calculus for minutes distribution changes. This year's 10th-13th men are not necessarily next year's rotation players. And when it comes to acquiring talent, one of the best things we can do is win games. Long losing streaks and an awful record are not going to help us bring in the caliber of player we need to get back to competing. That's not to say that a narrow win over a bubble team like PC is going to have players lining up, but if we can avoid being laughably/embarrassingly bad I think that does make a difference. And given that we've been competitive in most of our games this season, I do think that's possible. While I'm definitely in the "find 5 minutes camp", this argument is completely fair. My counter is what we saw from TJ Berger. He doesn't play the first 3 games, gets garbage time against Coppin and Nova. Then suddenly he gets put into the St Johns, and that really looked like it was just out of frustration w Dante in the moment, I'm not buying he suddenly had an amazing week of practice that earned him rotation minutes. And then he shows you something, that his shooting skill translates and he can make the right pass most times and at least tries on defense. That the moments aren't entirely too big for him. And now maybe it doesn't seem so crazy to think he could at least be in the rotation next year. Sure part of the 5 minutes ask is to help these guys get acclimated to BE competition (particularly for Sibley and he's getting his minutes now so less of a big deal), but it's also trying to understand and evaluate what you have in your players that will be here next year (or whether they should be here next year as you talk about offseason changes). Yes of course, if Clark plays in a few games and shows you no signs of doing anything, then you don't have to continue it. But I don't think you can simply know what a player will be from practice alone, and learning what you have for next year might even help dictate your offseason decisions. For those that argue practice time is enough to evaluate, I feel like we've seen multiple times in Ewing's tenure where he's slow to make rotation changes. LeBlanc didn't start for 8 games, don't tell me Mourning was outplaying him in practice. Malinowski was not a key part of the rotation until McClung got hurt. Terrell Allen and Jahvon Blair have shown they probably warranted more minutes before the great exodus. Simply put, the more information you gather, the better off you are. Yes winning is paramount but I think there's a way to find Clark a few min in the 1st half of games just to sanity check is there a skillset there to develop without tanking games.This also holds for the folks who state kids haven't "earned" playing time when it's more the case of the coach playing his preferred line-up, I get that he does it because he's playing to win... Unfortunately, the wins aren't coming consistently enough in my view to warrant not having some eye towards the future with kids who we'd think have a future with the program...
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Feb 1, 2021 17:26:52 GMT -5
Last year’s excuse was defections. This year’s excuse is the pandemic. Next year’s excuse will be youth. Only one constant...
|
|
Omega
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 565
|
Post by Omega on Feb 1, 2021 19:47:39 GMT -5
Agendas, agendas, agendas. I love it when folks tie themselves in nots trying to seem objective while make the most laughable points...
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by hoyarooter on Feb 1, 2021 20:24:40 GMT -5
Steering this thread back to the Providence game, I swear I don't know how we won with Blair and Pickett shooting so poorly, but it was nice to see us reverse our come from ahead and lose pattern. Did anyone address above why Tim started instead of Wahab?
|
|
|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Feb 1, 2021 22:10:23 GMT -5
Sadly, I think we will be worse next year than we are this year. We will miss the flawed contributions of Pickett and Blair. I fear you may be right. Expectations of what a freshman class can do are often grossly inflated. Not at all fair to the incoming kids. Consider that next year's team will (as it currently stands) have no seniors a couple of juniors who are still very raw in their development, and a sophomore class with little experience outside of Dante Harris. I am already hoping that Carey, or Blair return, as despite the constant criticism he takes here, I expect Pickett to be playing professionally somewhere. All the more reason for Ewing to show growth as a coach now in the last month to give hope that he can mold together a team next year that will be respectable. Man this negativity is getting to be too much. We are going to miss the “flawed contributions” of Blair and Pickett! Was there supposed to be a compliment in there somewhere for Blair and Pickett?!
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,366
|
Post by calhoya on Feb 1, 2021 22:20:19 GMT -5
I fear you may be right. Expectations of what a freshman class can do are often grossly inflated. Not at all fair to the incoming kids. Consider that next year's team will (as it currently stands) have no seniors a couple of juniors who are still very raw in their development, and a sophomore class with little experience outside of Dante Harris. I am already hoping that Carey, or Blair return, as despite the constant criticism he takes here, I expect Pickett to be playing professionally somewhere. All the more reason for Ewing to show growth as a coach now in the last month to give hope that he can mold together a team next year that will be respectable. Man this negativity is getting to be too much. We are going to miss the “flawed contributions” of Blair and Pickett! Was there supposed to be a compliment in there somewhere for Blair and Pickett?! Assume you meant the OP as I am a big fan of both kids and grateful for their loyalty to the program. I think too much is made of their shooting woes and too little of other areas in which they contribute. Pickett leads the league in rebounding, plays decent defense and still is a double digit scorer. Blair is an iron man, sometimes to his detriment and the best FT shooter on the team. Far from perfect players but kids i want on the floor even on an off night. Both sacrificed much of their growth standing/sitting and watching Ewing allow the two departed guards play selfishly, passing infrequently and dominating the ball..
|
|