justsaying
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 709
|
Post by justsaying on Oct 26, 2021 10:44:08 GMT -5
It’s a very depressing place at the moment, dominated by the same several posters who are relentless in their negativity. It’s hard to imagine being so keyed up with the team not having played a game, but these folks take a perverse pleasure in reminding us that the program hasn’t been very good in the recent past. It’s a very strange - and irritating - dynamic here. EXHIBIT A: So pumped that we lost Wahab and kept “one of the very few coaches in the country willing to play eighties ball”! Cutting off our nose to spite our face is the best! Won BE championship with less talent. Some coaches in the league are still wishing.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,391
|
Post by drquigley on Oct 26, 2021 12:04:13 GMT -5
I may have posted this years ago but what the heck. In 1965 I was an assistant manager of the bball team. We (the students) thought we would have a really good team that year. Plenty of height (Hollandoner, Heskin, Sullivan) great guards (Brown and Prendergast) and of course Jim Barry. Someone scheduled a closed pre-season scrimmage at McDonough against Duke, a previous year Final Four team with great players (Marin, Lewis, Verga), a great coach (Bubas) and lots of "cachet". I'll never forget watching their three buses arrive. One for the players, one for the coaches (at least 5) and one for just their AV equipment. We greeted them. Me, the team manager, and Coach O'Keefe and his assistant, and freshman coach, Ed Lopata. From the moment the scrimmage began it was glaringly obvious that we didn't even belong on the same court as these guys. I'll never forget Verga drilling long jumpers, what today would be 3 pointers, Marin gliding past our defenders for pull up jumpers, and their defense just smothering our ball handlers. Needless to say when I got back to the dorm everyone wanted to know how we did. I lied. I said we looked a little rusty but "held our own". FWIW I would treat all reports and reporters of our Temple scrimmage with the same respect. DrQ how did the team do that year? Were they just out-classed by Duke or was it a long year problem? FWIW we have intel now from both sides that GTown was outplayed by Temple. If I recall we started out pretty well and were really thinking of playing in the post season. But then came the disaster against St. Joes at the Palestra. Got creamed. Distinct memory of that game because a dense fog kept us from getting to the game until just as the first half ended. Walked in as a St. Joes player hit a long jumper to put us down by 20. Fog closed the NJ turnpike and a group of us spent the night in a fleabag hotel in downtown Philly. That team was fun to watch. No defense classic run and gun offense. But putting Tommy Okeefe up against Doc Ramsey and other talented and full time coaches was no contest. During my 4 years the bball program was mediocre at best. But one thing was great about it. WE PLAYED AT MCDONOUGH! The gym was always packed and our games were pretty much the highlight of the week. While I envy modern students because of the quality of the teams we put on the court over the past 30-40 years I still feel bad that they never had a chance to experience a packed game at McDonough.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,496
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 26, 2021 12:09:30 GMT -5
DrQ how did the team do that year? Were they just out-classed by Duke or was it a long year problem? FWIW we have intel now from both sides that GTown was outplayed by Temple. If I recall we started out pretty well and were really thinking of playing in the post season. But then came the disaster against St. Joes at the Palestra. Got creamed. Distinct memory of that game because a dense fog kept us from getting to the game until just as the first half ended. Walked in as a St. Joes player hit a long jumper to put us down by 20. Fog closed the NJ turnpike and a group of us spent the night in a fleabag hotel in downtown Philly. That team was fun to watch. No defense classic run and gun offense. But putting Tommy Okeefe up against Doc Ramsey and other talented and full time coaches was no contest. During my 4 years the bball program was mediocre at best. But one thing was great about it. WE PLAYED AT MCDONOUGH! The gym was always packed and our games were pretty much the highlight of the week. While I envy modern students because of the quality of the teams we put on the court over the past 30-40 years I still feel bad that they never had a chance to experience a packed game at McDonough. Could not agree more. In my four years, I went to every BET and three final fours (not to mention 2nd round loss in Louisville in ‘83) and the best single experience remains Missouri at McDonough…
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,518
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Oct 26, 2021 12:28:30 GMT -5
DrQ how did the team do that year? Were they just out-classed by Duke or was it a long year problem? FWIW we have intel now from both sides that GTown was outplayed by Temple. If I recall we started out pretty well and were really thinking of playing in the post season. But then came the disaster against St. Joes at the Palestra. Got creamed. Distinct memory of that game because a dense fog kept us from getting to the game until just as the first half ended. Walked in as a St. Joes player hit a long jumper to put us down by 20. Fog closed the NJ turnpike and a group of us spent the night in a fleabag hotel in downtown Philly. That team was fun to watch. No defense classic run and gun offense. But putting Tommy Okeefe up against Doc Ramsey and other talented and full time coaches was no contest. During my 4 years the bball program was mediocre at best. But one thing was great about it. WE PLAYED AT MCDONOUGH! The gym was always packed and our games were pretty much the highlight of the week. While I envy modern students because of the quality of the teams we put on the court over the past 30-40 years I still feel bad that they never had a chance to experience a packed game at McDonough. I was one of the few Hoyas who got there before the fog shut down the freeway. It was awful from the start. And the dagger was the halfcourt shot to put St. Joe's up by 35 at halftime. We were able to get back to campus that evening. Yes, playing at McD was great - could do homework, go to the game, finish up the homework. And every game was packed.
|
|
hoyadimes
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 140
|
Post by hoyadimes on Oct 26, 2021 13:08:28 GMT -5
Siiiiiigh. From the sounds of this board, why bother playing the games this season? Why'd Gtown bother stepping on the floor for the Big East Tournament last season? Oh wait, cus there was a chance they would win!! And they did but of course the Debbie Downers have even spent time depreciating that accomplishment. Yes, the team is less experienced, but they are more talented this year. Its going to take time to acclimate 3-4 new starters and up to 5-6 rotational players. Its not like we haven't watched other teams develop right before our eyes, with the same dude in charge no less. I choose to be excited and optimistic about every upcoming season. Whats the point of having no hope before the first jump ball?!!
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 26, 2021 16:00:40 GMT -5
Siiiiiigh. From the sounds of this board, why bother playing the games this season? Why'd Gtown bother stepping on the floor for the Big East Tournament last season? Oh wait, cus there was a chance they would win!! And they did but of course the Debbie Downers have even spent time depreciating that accomplishment. Yes, the team is less experienced, but they are more talented this year. Its going to take time to acclimate 3-4 new starters and up to 5-6 rotational players. Its not like we haven't watched other teams develop right before our eyes, with the same dude in charge no less. I choose to be excited and optimistic about every upcoming season. Whats the point of having no hope before the first jump ball?!! Of course, as a coach and player, you always go on the court thinking you can and should win (at least at a high major school). But, as fans, that's not a requirement. I think we all want the team to win, but wanting a win is different from realistically expecting one. The BET was great, but we cannot bank on that method of post-season success or getting to the NCAA tournament. Some odds estimates said our winning the BET was less than 1% last year. Right or wrong, that's partly what it was fantastic. It was unlikely, we played great, and we steamrolled some really excellent teams. It was a fantastic week for Georgetown basketball. But, a BET run like that (when you finish 8th in the regular season and are not an at-large bid) is probably a once-in-a-lifetime thing, at least for those of us who aren't college students or younger. The BET is a great building block, but it was an extremely unlikely win, and should be seen for being special in that way. It should not be seen as a model we can emulate for future success. So, no, I don't think we are "depreciating" the accomplishment. I think we all think it was a great accomplishment (or most of us). But, that win is largely divorced from what will happen this season. So yeah, it's cool, but it's essentially meaningless to the performance of the team for 2021-2022, especially considering that most of the faces will be different and less experienced. It may not seem like it, but I have some optimism for this year. I am excited to see Aminu, and the other freshman. For me, the biggest drag is that I truly think that without a major defensive change, we are going to struggle to get better, and we have no idea if it will be better. It was better for the BET, but disappeared again against Colorado. So, I am hopeful we will improve on the defensive end, but it's been a persistent struggle outside the 4 BET games.
|
|
justsaying
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 709
|
Post by justsaying on Oct 26, 2021 17:13:43 GMT -5
"Scrimmages?"
Oh, yeah it does matter where you are as long as the criers and Editeders take over any meaning conversation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2021 17:22:51 GMT -5
Siiiiiigh. From the sounds of this board, why bother playing the games this season? Why'd Gtown bother stepping on the floor for the Big East Tournament last season? Oh wait, cus there was a chance they would win!! And they did but of course the Debbie Downers have even spent time depreciating that accomplishment. Yes, the team is less experienced, but they are more talented this year. Its going to take time to acclimate 3-4 new starters and up to 5-6 rotational players. Its not like we haven't watched other teams develop right before our eyes, with the same dude in charge no less. I choose to be excited and optimistic about every upcoming season. Whats the point of having no hope before the first jump ball?!! Of course, as a coach and player, you always go on the court thinking you can and should win (at least at a high major school). But, as fans, that's not a requirement. I think we all want the team to win, but wanting a win is different from realistically expecting one. The BET was great, but we cannot bank on that method of post-season success or getting to the NCAA tournament. Some odds estimates said our winning the BET was less than 1% last year. Right or wrong, that's partly what it was fantastic. It was unlikely, we played great, and we steamrolled some really excellent teams. It was a fantastic week for Georgetown basketball. But, a BET run like that (when you finish 8th in the regular season and are not an at-large bid) is probably a once-in-a-lifetime thing, at least for those of us who aren't college students or younger. The BET is a great building block, but it was an extremely unlikely win, and should be seen for being special in that way. It should not be seen as a model we can emulate for future success. So, no, I don't think we are "depreciating" the accomplishment. I think we all think it was a great accomplishment (or most of us). But, that win is largely divorced from what will happen this season. So yeah, it's cool, but it's essentially meaningless to the performance of the team for 2021-2022, especially considering that most of the faces will be different and less experienced. It may not seem like it, but I have some optimism for this year. I am excited to see Aminu, and the other freshman. For me, the biggest drag is that I truly think that without a major defensive change, we are going to struggle to get better, and we have no idea if it will be better. It was better for the BET, but disappeared again against Colorado. So, I am hopeful we will improve on the defensive end, but it's been a persistent struggle outside the 4 BET games. I think it's false to say our defense was only good for 4 games. We had some pretty good defensive performance over the last half of the season that lead into the BET. It didn't just come out of nowhere imo. Do you believe the Colorado game was a scheme issue or do you think it was a personnel issue?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 26, 2021 17:24:35 GMT -5
"Scrimmages?" Oh, yeah it does matter where you are as long as the criers and Editeders take over any meaning conversation. Okay, "Scrimmages." We had one against Temple, they purportedly beat us, blueandgray says we looked bad. That's all we know. I apologize for my own role in contributing to derailing the thread, but there's really nothing left to talk about about scrimmages. If that's the standard, this should be locked up.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 26, 2021 17:33:28 GMT -5
Of course, as a coach and player, you always go on the court thinking you can and should win (at least at a high major school). But, as fans, that's not a requirement. I think we all want the team to win, but wanting a win is different from realistically expecting one. The BET was great, but we cannot bank on that method of post-season success or getting to the NCAA tournament. Some odds estimates said our winning the BET was less than 1% last year. Right or wrong, that's partly what it was fantastic. It was unlikely, we played great, and we steamrolled some really excellent teams. It was a fantastic week for Georgetown basketball. But, a BET run like that (when you finish 8th in the regular season and are not an at-large bid) is probably a once-in-a-lifetime thing, at least for those of us who aren't college students or younger. The BET is a great building block, but it was an extremely unlikely win, and should be seen for being special in that way. It should not be seen as a model we can emulate for future success. So, no, I don't think we are "depreciating" the accomplishment. I think we all think it was a great accomplishment (or most of us). But, that win is largely divorced from what will happen this season. So yeah, it's cool, but it's essentially meaningless to the performance of the team for 2021-2022, especially considering that most of the faces will be different and less experienced. It may not seem like it, but I have some optimism for this year. I am excited to see Aminu, and the other freshman. For me, the biggest drag is that I truly think that without a major defensive change, we are going to struggle to get better, and we have no idea if it will be better. It was better for the BET, but disappeared again against Colorado. So, I am hopeful we will improve on the defensive end, but it's been a persistent struggle outside the 4 BET games. Our defense was only good for 4 games? Do you believe the Colorado game was a scheme issue or do you think it was a personnel issue? Good question. Our defense the first three Ewing years ranked 119, 133, 125. Before the BET it was ranked 85, after the BET and Colorado, it was 65. So, either way an improvement. That said, 85 or 65 isn't good, and certainly not good enough to be at the level of an NCAA contender. But, I'll grant, the trend line is in the right direction, for sure. That said, to answer your question, I absolutely think it is a scheme problem or a teaching problem. That's not to say that our personnel were great or top notch. But, a great defensive coach can make defense equal more than the sum of its parts (see Chris Beard at Little Rock). Our defensive performances have been plagued by bad communication, guys in the wrong spaces, etc. And we've seen a full turnover in talent under Ewing, and it's mostly stayed the same (though happy Ewing got rid of the hard hedge last year). I have repeatedly said I thought Ewing should bring in a defensive specialist. Obviously, that hasn't happened. This is why I am concerned for the future, mostly. If we cannot break out of a 65-133 range on defense, we aren't going to have success, it's that plain and simple. And whether you look at analytics, or the eye test, our defense has mostly been putrid over the last 4 years, including most of last year. All that said, the BET defense was fantastic. I truly do not understand where it came from, but I'm happy to give the staff credit for that. It was truly amazing defense. But, it was bookended by horrible defensive performances against Connecticut (giving up 98 points, 1.32 ppp), and Colorado (96 points, also 1.32 ppp). Hence, my concern, and why I am not convinced we turned a corner. That's how I see it. I get that you could spin the last 10 games or so, when our analytics looked better and visually we looked better, and say we are trending upward, but seeing the same old bad defense creep in against Colorado made me think the BET defense was more of a blip than a trend. I hope I am wrong.
|
|
boxout05
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 573
|
Post by boxout05 on Oct 26, 2021 17:50:59 GMT -5
Boeheim’s 2-3 is predicated on the belief that college shooting isn’t good enough to consistently beat a zone. Last year, it seemed as if a large part of our defense down the stretch was forcing teams into taking 3s. In the BET, we ran to the line, really stuck the good shooters, and got fortunate when other shooters missed. There maybe a way to make it work long term, but Colorado hit every single one of those 3s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2021 18:04:25 GMT -5
Our defense was only good for 4 games? Do you believe the Colorado game was a scheme issue or do you think it was a personnel issue? Good question. Our defense the first three Ewing years ranked 119, 133, 125. Before the BET it was ranked 85, after the BET and Colorado, it was 65. So, either way an improvement. That said, 85 or 65 isn't good, and certainly not good enough to be at the level of an NCAA contender. But, I'll grant, the trend line is in the right direction, for sure. That said, to answer your question, I absolutely think it is a scheme problem, and not a personnel issue. That's not to say that our personnel were great or top notch. But, a great defensive coach can make defense equal more than the sum of its parts (see Chris Beard at Little Rock). This is why I am concerned for the future, mostly. If we cannot break out of a 65-133 range on defense, we aren't going to have success, it's that plain and simple. And whether you look at analytics, or the eye test, our defense has mostly been putrid over the last 4 years, including most of last year. All that said, the BET defense was fantastic. I truly do not understand where it came from, but I'm happy to give the staff credit for that. It was truly amazing defense. But, it was bookended by horrible defensive performances against Connecticut (giving up 98 points, 1.32 ppp), and Colorado (96 points, also 1.32 ppp). Hence, my concern, and why I am not convinced we turned a corner. That's how I see it. I get that you could spin the last 10 games or so, when our analytics looked better and visually we looked better, and say we are trending upward, but seeing the same old bad defense creep in against Colorado made me think the BET defense was more of a blip than a trend. I hope I am wrong. 1) I don't think it's spin to say overall we defended a lot better over the second half of the season. Especially over the last 12 games or so and I think the numbers back that up. The BET was a level above but there were some really good defensive games over that period that weren't part of that as well imo. 2) Throughout the year we saw our 5 have problems guarding on the perimeter. You can cite a number of games where this was exploited. If you look at what Isaiah Moore, Ellington and Jermaine Samuels did to us you can see the trend line. Teams that had a mobile big that can knock down perimeter shots ate against us last year. Ellington and Moore combined to average 26.5 pppg in our two games against them. Samuels averaged 26ppg the last two games we faced them. The Colorado bigs shot 6-6 from 3 and combined to score 33pts on 12-14 shooting. Out of that entire group only one player was a double digit scorer on the season (Samuels 12.1ppg). Don't you think that points to a personnel issue more than a scheme issue, and if not what scheme would you implement to stop that from occurring? Colorado had a potent offense last year and they didn't get slowed down a lot but when they did it seemed to be against teams that had big guard and more switchable type players at the F/C spots (FSU, Oregon, Tennessee).
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 26, 2021 18:28:46 GMT -5
1) I don't think it's spin to say overall we defended a lot better over the second half of the season. Especially over the last 12 games or so and I think the numbers back that up. The BET was a level above but there were some really good defensive games over that period that weren't part of that as well imo. I think that's fair. 2) Throughout the year we saw our 5 have problems guarding on the perimeter. You can cite a number of games where this was exploited. If you look at what Isaiah Moore, Ellington and Jermaine Samuels did to us you can see the trend line. Teams that had a mobile big that can knock down perimeter shots ate against us last year. Ellington and Moore combined to average 26.5 pppg in our two games against them. Samuels averaged 26ppg the last two games we faced them. The Colorado bigs shot 6-6 from 3 and combined to score 33pts on 12-14 shooting. Out of that entire group only one player was a double digit scorer on the season (Samuels 12.1ppg). Don't you think that points to a personnel issue more than a scheme issue, and if not what scheme would you implement to stop that from occurring? Colorado had a potent offense last year and they didn't get slowed down a lot but when they did it seemed to be against teams that had more switchable type players at the F/C spots (FSU, Oregon, Tennessee). I agree with you that our 5 was exploited. But, that wasn't really unique to last year. The same thing happened the previous year, when teams exploited Yurtseven, and the hard hedge (a really bad idea) just made it worse. Wahab may have been less nimble than Yurtseven, but both of them were ill suited to guarding the perimeter. That makes me wonder why they were put in that position. In a way, you are making an argument against the scheme. Clearly, Ewing has favored using a more traditional approach using a more traditional 5. This was evident both in how he used Wahab, but also how he used Yurtseven, as well. And, without Tre King this year, I assume we will see a lot of the combination of Mutombo, Wilson, and Ighoefe. I do not think the latter two can defend the perimeter any better than Yurtseven/Wahab did, and unclear on Mutombo, but if he's really 7'2, it's unlikely. So, if you acknowledge that the scheme didn't work well because of a traditional big/weak personnel, why continue to use the same scheme if you're going to recruit traditional 5's? I include implementation in the scheme. I am confident that the exact same scheme could be executed better with the same personnel, with better awareness, communication, etc. In some ways, the BET proves that because we did implement it better. I would be fine with the scheme if it worked with our personnel, but its effectiveness has been limited. As for alternatives, I think the modern collegiate game is tough on a man-to-man defense, though I think it can work if well coached (and to not beat around the bush, I just do not think our defense has been well coached since the freedom of movement rules changed in 2013). Otherwise, a pack the line style defense and/or a good zone (which Georgetown hasn't had since 2013) might work better. But, again, all these systems require coaches who can implement them, and I am assuming Ewing is not as familiar with pack the line or a zone (though Orr should know the latter).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2021 18:39:23 GMT -5
1) I don't think it's spin to say overall we defended a lot better over the second half of the season. Especially over the last 12 games or so and I think the numbers back that up. The BET was a level above but there were some really good defensive games over that period that weren't part of that as well imo. I think that's fair. 2) Throughout the year we saw our 5 have problems guarding on the perimeter. You can cite a number of games where this was exploited. If you look at what Isaiah Moore, Ellington and Jermaine Samuels did to us you can see the trend line. Teams that had a mobile big that can knock down perimeter shots ate against us last year. Ellington and Moore combined to average 26.5 pppg in our two games against them. Samuels averaged 26ppg the last two games we faced them. The Colorado bigs shot 6-6 from 3 and combined to score 33pts on 12-14 shooting. Out of that entire group only one player was a double digit scorer on the season (Samuels 12.1ppg). Don't you think that points to a personnel issue more than a scheme issue, and if not what scheme would you implement to stop that from occurring? Colorado had a potent offense last year and they didn't get slowed down a lot but when they did it seemed to be against teams that had more switchable type players at the F/C spots (FSU, Oregon, Tennessee). I agree with you that our 5 was exploited. But, that wasn't really unique to last year. The same thing happened the previous year, when teams exploited Yurtseven, and the hard hedge (a really bad idea) just made it worse. Wahab may have been less nimble than Yurtseven, but both of them were ill suited to guarding the perimeter. That makes me wonder why they were put in that position. In a way, you are making an argument against the scheme. Clearly, Ewing has favored using a more traditional approach using a more traditional 5. This was evident both in how he used Wahab, but also how he used Yurtseven, as well. And, without Tre King this year, I assume we will see a lot of the combination of Mutombo, Wilson, and Ighoefe. I do not think the latter two can defend the perimeter any better than Yurtseven/Wahab did, and unclear on Mutombo, but if he's really 7'2, it's unlikely. So, if you acknowledge that the scheme didn't work well because of a traditional big/weak personnel, why continue to use the same scheme if you're going to recruit traditional 5's? I include implementation in the scheme. I am confident that the exact same scheme could be executed better with the same personnel, with better awareness, communication, etc. In some ways, the BET proves that because we did implement it better. I would be fine with the scheme if it worked with our personnel, but its effectiveness has been limited. As for alternatives, I think the modern collegiate game is tough on a man-to-man defense, though I think it can work if well coached. Otherwise, a pack the line style defense and/or a good zone (which Georgetown hasn't had since 2013) might work better. But, again, all these systems require coaches who can implement them, and I am assuming Ewing is not as familiar with pack the line or a zone (though Orr should know the latter). I mean we're not a pick 'em school so I think they're recruiting the best kids they can get and that happens to be the bigs we landed. I don't think it's an argument against the scheme because you mentioned two different ways we tried to defend this play and acknowledged both were ineffective. That makes it look more of a pick your poison situation imo. I think the hope was that Wilson would be that guy as he showed some promise guarding smaller players in HS, but it hasn't panned so far. I don't know what scheme you can use with Q as your center that makes the pick and pop less exploitable other than going zone. Maybe you could go small but Q was also our most effective offensive player that game so imo the answers aren't easy in this case. I don't think pack line helps you in this instance as the basic principle is to keep teams out of the paint and force them to hit perimeter shots.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,391
|
Post by drquigley on Oct 26, 2021 18:41:07 GMT -5
If I recall we started out pretty well and were really thinking of playing in the post season. But then came the disaster against St. Joes at the Palestra. Got creamed. Distinct memory of that game because a dense fog kept us from getting to the game until just as the first half ended. Walked in as a St. Joes player hit a long jumper to put us down by 20. Fog closed the NJ turnpike and a group of us spent the night in a fleabag hotel in downtown Philly. That team was fun to watch. No defense classic run and gun offense. But putting Tommy Okeefe up against Doc Ramsey and other talented and full time coaches was no contest. During my 4 years the bball program was mediocre at best. But one thing was great about it. WE PLAYED AT MCDONOUGH! The gym was always packed and our games were pretty much the highlight of the week. While I envy modern students because of the quality of the teams we put on the court over the past 30-40 years I still feel bad that they never had a chance to experience a packed game at McDonough. I was one of the few Hoyas who got there before the fog shut down the freeway. It was awful from the start. And the dagger was the halfcourt shot to put St. Joe's up by 35 at halftime. We were able to get back to campus that evening. Yes, playing at McD was great - could do homework, go to the game, finish up the homework. And every game was packed. Our routine was go to Giovanni's for pizza and beer before the game and the Tombs for more beer after the game.
|
|
wsdhoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 466
|
Post by wsdhoya on Oct 26, 2021 18:56:21 GMT -5
I've heard many coaches say their philosophy is to "recruit offense, teach defense". Defense at the college level has a lot to do with scheming and coaching. You have to teach kids to defend as a unit and know when to help vs not help. Helping when we shouldn't and not helping when we should has been one of our biggest issues on defense. Love that the defense has trended in the right direction, especially last year. Can't deny that the team last year improved leaps and bounds from non conference to the BET. A lot of that had to do with new guys gelling that couldn't prior to the season because of covid, but at least some of that had to be coaching, and Ewing getting his gumbo recipe better as he went.
|
|
kbones17
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,186
|
Post by kbones17 on Oct 26, 2021 22:14:24 GMT -5
I've heard many coaches say their philosophy is to "recruit offense, teach defense". Defense at the college level has a lot to do with scheming and coaching. You have to teach kids to defend as a unit and know when to help vs not help. Helping when we shouldn't and not helping when we should has been one of our biggest issues on defense. Love that the defense has trended in the right direction, especially last year. Can't deny that the team last year improved leaps and bounds from non conference to the BET. A lot of that had to do with new guys gelling that couldn't prior to the season because of covid, but at least some of that had to be coaching, and Ewing getting his gumbo recipe better as he went. Given our struggles defensively I actually fall on the other side of this: I actually would love to see us recruit defensive ability/high motor/athleticism and coach up the offense scheme.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by tashoya on Oct 26, 2021 23:08:38 GMT -5
1) I don't think it's spin to say overall we defended a lot better over the second half of the season. Especially over the last 12 games or so and I think the numbers back that up. The BET was a level above but there were some really good defensive games over that period that weren't part of that as well imo. I think that's fair. 2) Throughout the year we saw our 5 have problems guarding on the perimeter. You can cite a number of games where this was exploited. If you look at what Isaiah Moore, Ellington and Jermaine Samuels did to us you can see the trend line. Teams that had a mobile big that can knock down perimeter shots ate against us last year. Ellington and Moore combined to average 26.5 pppg in our two games against them. Samuels averaged 26ppg the last two games we faced them. The Colorado bigs shot 6-6 from 3 and combined to score 33pts on 12-14 shooting. Out of that entire group only one player was a double digit scorer on the season (Samuels 12.1ppg). Don't you think that points to a personnel issue more than a scheme issue, and if not what scheme would you implement to stop that from occurring? Colorado had a potent offense last year and they didn't get slowed down a lot but when they did it seemed to be against teams that had more switchable type players at the F/C spots (FSU, Oregon, Tennessee). I agree with you that our 5 was exploited. But, that wasn't really unique to last year. The same thing happened the previous year, when teams exploited Yurtseven, and the hard hedge (a really bad idea) just made it worse. Wahab may have been less nimble than Yurtseven, but both of them were ill suited to guarding the perimeter. That makes me wonder why they were put in that position. In a way, you are making an argument against the scheme. Clearly, Ewing has favored using a more traditional approach using a more traditional 5. This was evident both in how he used Wahab, but also how he used Yurtseven, as well. And, without Tre King this year, I assume we will see a lot of the combination of Mutombo, Wilson, and Ighoefe. I do not think the latter two can defend the perimeter any better than Yurtseven/Wahab did, and unclear on Mutombo, but if he's really 7'2, it's unlikely. So, if you acknowledge that the scheme didn't work well because of a traditional big/weak personnel, why continue to use the same scheme if you're going to recruit traditional 5's? I include implementation in the scheme. I am confident that the exact same scheme could be executed better with the same personnel, with better awareness, communication, etc. In some ways, the BET proves that because we did implement it better. I would be fine with the scheme if it worked with our personnel, but its effectiveness has been limited. As for alternatives, I think the modern collegiate game is tough on a man-to-man defense, though I think it can work if well coached (and to not beat around the bush, I just do not think our defense has been well coached since the freedom of movement rules changed in 2013). Otherwise, a pack the line style defense and/or a good zone (which Georgetown hasn't had since 2013) might work better. But, again, all these systems require coaches who can implement them, and I am assuming Ewing is not as familiar with pack the line or a zone (though Orr should know the latter). How else was Wahab to be used? He can't shoot. He's a terrible passer. He's a turnover waiting to happen. But, when he's fed down low and didn't put the ball on the floor, he's very good on the low post. At some point, you have to play with what you have. For the, "Ewing is a terrible coach," crowd, is Ewing a worse coach if he plays to Wahab's strengths or runs an offense that plays to Wahab's protestations about his strengths and allows him to jack up 3's that he has next to no chance of hitting. We all watched the games, right? Am I the only one that cringed every time Q took a short range jumper much less a long range one? Sure, make the argument that it's on a coach to recruit. Entirely fair. But, once you have your team assembled, don't you have to adjust whatever schemes based on the personnel you actually have? Wahab having a high usage rate was never a recipe for great success. But, it was the best chance our team had. And, if you pulled Q away from the basket your chances of winning were immediately cut by well more than half. He can't shoot and he's not quick enough to guard the perimeter. Get Ewing on roster construction. Not on the offense he ran.
|
|
dchoya72
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,488
|
Post by dchoya72 on Oct 27, 2021 5:26:47 GMT -5
I don't think Q shot enough jumpers to know what he was really capable of; he had very good form on his free throws.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 743
|
Post by rhw485 on Oct 27, 2021 7:46:50 GMT -5
I agree with you that our 5 was exploited. But, that wasn't really unique to last year. The same thing happened the previous year, when teams exploited Yurtseven, and the hard hedge (a really bad idea) just made it worse. Wahab may have been less nimble than Yurtseven, but both of them were ill suited to guarding the perimeter. That makes me wonder why they were put in that position. In a way, you are making an argument against the scheme. Clearly, Ewing has favored using a more traditional approach using a more traditional 5. This was evident both in how he used Wahab, but also how he used Yurtseven, as well. And, without Tre King this year, I assume we will see a lot of the combination of Mutombo, Wilson, and Ighoefe. I do not think the latter two can defend the perimeter any better than Yurtseven/Wahab did, and unclear on Mutombo, but if he's really 7'2, it's unlikely. So, if you acknowledge that the scheme didn't work well because of a traditional big/weak personnel, why continue to use the same scheme if you're going to recruit traditional 5's? I include implementation in the scheme. I am confident that the exact same scheme could be executed better with the same personnel, with better awareness, communication, etc. In some ways, the BET proves that because we did implement it better. I would be fine with the scheme if it worked with our personnel, but its effectiveness has been limited. As for alternatives, I think the modern collegiate game is tough on a man-to-man defense, though I think it can work if well coached (and to not beat around the bush, I just do not think our defense has been well coached since the freedom of movement rules changed in 2013). Otherwise, a pack the line style defense and/or a good zone (which Georgetown hasn't had since 2013) might work better. But, again, all these systems require coaches who can implement them, and I am assuming Ewing is not as familiar with pack the line or a zone (though Orr should know the latter). As it relates to last years defensive improvements, probably easier to link back to a post I did before the Colorado game: hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/921609Post Covid break we were the 19th best defense in the country going into the Colorado game. Obviously the Colorado game tanked some of those numbers, but I broke out where the improvement really happened. And we're talking over more than 10 games, it includes UConn smoking us. I still think we settled as 35th best defense post covid break. That's more than enough to be NCAA eligible. The only thing I'll add is I saw the Tre King signing as a direct response to what happened in the Colorado game. In reality, there's no great solution to guarding pick and pop, you need someone who can switch the screen or be uber athletic to really be able to effectively blitz and double to the point there's no simple pass, not just hard hedge. The only other defense that could work is a zone, Ewing hasn't gone that route, and with the size of our backcourt zones haven't been effective. It's unfortunate we won't see Tre King but I still see a coach adapting, he tried to adjust the roster in the offseason after successfully adjusting the defensive scheme last season.
|
|