jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,037
|
Post by jwp91 on Apr 18, 2024 9:13:21 GMT -5
Are we discounting the fact that Mack had big games against power competition? He had 27 against Indiana and I think 20 against BC Yes. Yes we are. The first couple of games of his freshman year. And he was amazing.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,877
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Apr 18, 2024 9:35:24 GMT -5
That list seems out of whack, showing SJU w zero transfer commits for example, but has us as the #1 in-coming transfer class and the #1 in-coming freshmen class in the BEast. And neither list includes Drew McKenna, who arguably could be our most impactful new-comer given his time with the team last season and his physical capabilities. Let’s make last season a total anomaly. 1 2 3 Fireballs I'm also not sure these are lists you want to be on. Spears/Murray/Wahab transfer class was highlighted touted and stunk. These lists are about the more bodies you are bringing in vs. those that are the best fit and add to an established stable of players. I would love to see us get to a place where we have a two player freshmen class and a two transfer class every year. The freshmen replace the seniors and the transfers replace other transfers that didn't pan out. One can dream. This would be the ideal steady state. Perhaps someday.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 18, 2024 10:42:10 GMT -5
I understand the concerns about Mack and Ivy League, though I think he succeeded enough at that level that he will be fine once he gets adjusted, and as he grows and becomes stronger/more skilled.
I am still a bit surprised at all the interest over in the Transfer thread about Seydou Traore, given that his performance at Manhattan was okay but not great, and he played in the MAAC. I realize the argument for Traore is more of a defense-oriented one, which I am okay with. I just think that adjusting from MAAC to the Big East is a way bigger jump than Ivy to the Big East.
Granted, I have never seen Seydou Traore play. His athleticism and skills on the defensive end may be great (and his size is good). I have no opposition to going after him--I am just not seeing how he would be nearly the impact of someone like Mack, for example.
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,818
|
Post by hoyazeke on Apr 18, 2024 10:45:33 GMT -5
Man the Jayden Epps slander on this site is getting ridiculous. Did yall watch the same team that I watched last year? Yes Jayden took bad shots but no one else wanted to take the big shot but maybe Jay. Trez disapperared, Drew/Rowan weren't ready, Ish was one-dimensional, Supreme was only good for dunking....who was suppose to take the shots? I don't think Jayden is a pure PG but he'll be really good with some real scoring options around him. The kid had 32 and 11 with only 4TOs while playing 38mins....you can luck your way to 5-6ast but you aren't lucking your way to 11.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,037
|
Post by jwp91 on Apr 18, 2024 10:59:25 GMT -5
I understand the concerns about Mack and Ivy League, though I think he succeeded enough at that level that he will be fine once he gets adjusted, and as he grows and becomes stronger/more skilled. I am still a bit surprised at all the interest over in the Transfer thread about Seydou Traore, given that his performance at Manhattan was okay but not great, and he played in the MAAC. I realize the argument for Traore is more of a defense-oriented one, which I am okay with. I just think that adjusting from MAAC to the Big East is a way bigger jump than Ivy to the Big East. Granted, I have never seen Seydou Traore play. His athleticism and skills on the defensive end may be great (and his size is good). I have no opposition to going after him--I am just not seeing how he would be nearly the impact of someone like Mack, for example. Doesn't Traori just look like a player on a Ed Cooley team?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 18, 2024 11:23:32 GMT -5
Man the Jayden Epps slander on this site is getting ridiculous. Did yall watch the same team that I watched last year? Yes Jayden took bad shots but no one else wanted to take the big shot but maybe Jay. Trez disapperared, Drew/Rowan weren't ready, Ish was one-dimensional, Supreme was only good for dunking....who was suppose to take the shots? I don't think Jayden is a pure PG but he'll be really good with some real scoring options around him. The kid had 32 and 11 with only 4TOs while playing 38mins....you can luck your way to 5-6ast but you aren't lucking your way to 11. A big part of the Epps haters are just Cooley haters in general, or people nursing weird grudges, so you have to separate that first. That said, I get some of it. Sophomore Epps isn't a player who plays a large role on a good team. He wasn't efficient, he did dominate the ball, and while there were times he actually was a very good distributor, there were also times he pounded the ball. He had some atrocious decision making and some very inconsistent defense in the half court and an abomination in transition. He ended up pretty poor from 3. But we weren't a good team. And it's clear some of the ball stopping was intentional by Cooley. The critics seem to ignore the context completely. They also seem to ignore that we had absolutely zero other players who could get their own shot reliably. None. Styles could do the Kobe once in a while. Heath could chuck it. Rowan may have moved the ball more, but Epps was far better at getting the ball to guys who had an immediate good shot ... and he was also best at getting his own shot. I think it's a valid concern to wonder if Epps can dial back some of his domination, if he can make better decisions in shooting 3s. If he can be more consistent in involving others. Some guys are just who they are; they can't mentally dial it back. It's a very valid concern. But it ignores the fact that he might be able to do so. It ignores the fact that he's very good at getting to the rim, and if he can improve his finishing a bit there and his 3 point shot and selection, he's suddenly a very good player. Especially for a team that might suddenly be transitioning to more athletic, defensive players around him. I don't think we want to go into next year with Mack being our only reliable guy in getting his own shot. That's where we were this year. The team collapses when they are off the court unless we get hot from three. The other team can key like hell on them. When you are a team with a couple of creators, the best players to add are guys who contribute without the ball. But when you lack the creators ... you need those guys. I wish we had an efficient, high usage guy who also got everyone involved, but people should maybe look around. We'll see how Epps adjusts. One thing that rarely gets mentioned is how well he dialed back his turnovers last year.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 18, 2024 11:27:35 GMT -5
I am still a bit surprised at all the interest over in the Transfer thread about Seydou Traore, given that his performance at Manhattan was okay but not great, and he played in the MAAC. I realize the argument for Traore is more of a defense-oriented one, which I am okay with. I just think that adjusting from MAAC to the Big East is a way bigger jump than Ivy to the Big East. Granted, I have never seen Seydou Traore play. His athleticism and skills on the defensive end may be great (and his size is good). I have no opposition to going after him--I am just not seeing how he would be nearly the impact of someone like Mack, for example. Is anyone saying that? I think some of the Traore interest is in a package deal with Cliff O., but he's clearly a Cooley-style player. If we're shoring up the defense, getting more wing athleticism is a plus. I don't know if he's better than a Williams or McKenna, but it is depth. I think the challenge with some of these guys is to make sure the higher potential freshmen -- who are more likely to be two way contributors -- don't get buried behind someone physically more suited to play defense today.
|
|
bluechi
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 646
|
Post by bluechi on Apr 18, 2024 11:36:21 GMT -5
I am still a bit surprised at all the interest over in the Transfer thread about Seydou Traore, given that his performance at Manhattan was okay but not great, and he played in the MAAC. I realize the argument for Traore is more of a defense-oriented one, which I am okay with. I just think that adjusting from MAAC to the Big East is a way bigger jump than Ivy to the Big East. Granted, I have never seen Seydou Traore play. His athleticism and skills on the defensive end may be great (and his size is good). I have no opposition to going after him--I am just not seeing how he would be nearly the impact of someone like Mack, for example. Is anyone saying that? I think some of the Traore interest is in a package deal with Cliff O., but he's clearly a Cooley-style player. If we're shoring up the defense, getting more wing athleticism is a plus. I don't know if he's better than a Williams or McKenna, but it is depth. I think the challenge with some of these guys is to make sure the higher potential freshmen -- who are more likely to be two way contributors -- don't get buried behind someone physically more suited to play defense today. Troare is instinctive and you can never have enough instinctive players I just like the way that he played against UConn he looked like he belonged and he had some good defensive plays sure we don't want to hurt the feelings of the freshman but I'm of the opinion that you take as many good guys good players as you can because there are injuries there are academic suspensions and you have him on a bench roll that second team will be pretty good And no it's not just about that game cuz they got blown out it's other games he played in he plays mature
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 18, 2024 11:40:53 GMT -5
Troare is instinctive and you can never have enough instinctive players I just like the way that he played against UConn he looked like he belonged and he had some good defensive plays sure we don't want to hurt the feelings of the freshman but I'm of the opinion that you take as many good guys good players as you can because there are injuries there are academic suspensions and you have him on a bench roll that second team will be pretty good It's not about hurting feelings; it's about understanding where the players might be in a year. I'm not someone who thinks next year can be just a developmental year, but there's also little point in caring about a win here or there if we're not actually challenging for the tourney. I don't know Seydou at all but I get the impression that his offensive upside is more of a finisher / scrappy player at the rim. That's fine. But if someone like Mulready has a chance to be a two way star one day, you've got to both develop that and keep him around. Because a true two-way player is simply worth a lot. But heck, Seydou could have more upside than I know. I have never watched him, and I've only seen the freshmen in high school. It's almost certain that one or two of them aren't anywhere near ready next year, and likely that at least one of them never really makes a college impact. Not by anything of them, just general odds.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 18, 2024 11:44:56 GMT -5
I am still a bit surprised at all the interest over in the Transfer thread about Seydou Traore, given that his performance at Manhattan was okay but not great, and he played in the MAAC. I realize the argument for Traore is more of a defense-oriented one, which I am okay with. I just think that adjusting from MAAC to the Big East is a way bigger jump than Ivy to the Big East. Granted, I have never seen Seydou Traore play. His athleticism and skills on the defensive end may be great (and his size is good). I have no opposition to going after him--I am just not seeing how he would be nearly the impact of someone like Mack, for example. Is anyone saying that? I think some of the Traore interest is in a package deal with Cliff O., but he's clearly a Cooley-style player. If we're shoring up the defense, getting more wing athleticism is a plus. I don't know if he's better than a Williams or McKenna, but it is depth. I think the challenge with some of these guys is to make sure the higher potential freshmen -- who are more likely to be two way contributors -- don't get buried behind someone physically more suited to play defense today. To clarify, I did not mean that people are saying Traore would be as impactful as Mack. Obviously, nobody is saying that. And I am totally fine with him being a defensive contributor. The only reason I brought up Mack was the Ivy League to Big East comparisons, and it seems like the MAAC to Big East jump would be a huge one for any player to make. That said, as others have said, he looks like a Cooley type player, and I trust Cooley to find and recruit those guys. And you are right - we need to fill out the roster, but cannot get guys who are going to prevent some of our younger players from getting minutes when those younger players very well could be better. So if that's why we would be recruiting him, I am all for it, especially if the staff likes him. I admit my brain is wired to get as many high impact people as possible now because I want to improve from last year very quickly. But, I also realize you cannot step too much on all the freshman either, otherwise a year from now Cooley could face a slew of more transfers from them, and we cannot afford that. On an entirely different note, I agree with your points on Epps. As you noted, he is clearly a guy with some flaws, but he also has a lot of good qualities too. Most of the anti-Epps sentiment comes from one poster too, which I think often makes it seem like there is more concern about Epps than there ought to be. While Epps is not a great defender, I also don't think he's nearly as bad as he is sometimes portrayed. I watched him closely on defense, and he often does play fairly good on-ball defense. His off-ball defense needs work, but you could say that about everybody on our roster last year. One of the biggest ways Epps hurt us too was his top of the key/ball handling turnovers that often led to easy points for the other team. Overall Epps' turnovers were actually pretty good given how much he handled the ball, but Mack's better ball handling will help in this regard a lot, I think, too. Last year, we essentially begged other teams to press us given our awful ball handling; I think Mack will go far in solving that problem (though it'd be nice to have someone on the bench, like a freshman Hammond, who could do that too).
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 18, 2024 12:22:49 GMT -5
I admit my brain is wired to get as many high impact people as possible now because I want to improve from last year very quickly. But, I also realize you cannot step too much on all the freshman either, otherwise a year from now Cooley could face a slew of more transfers from them, and we cannot afford that. I can understand that thought, for sure. And I'd love to contend for a tournament spot next year as well. But I also think that we need to have a realistic strategy that emphasizes pulling ourselves out of the gutter. And while there are teams that turn around their team entirely in the portal in like a year ... there are also many who try it and fail. Having a tourney-quality team next year would be great. But having another poor team and running off freshmen talent would be a disaster relative to a decent season. So you just have to weigh the odds and manage through it. It's one thing to say you will find developmental minutes, but coaches tend to be hyper competitive and also have to worry about total team dynamics -- does the team quit if they aren't winning; how do the better players feel about losing a game to developmental minutes; how do players feel about a better player now being benched? We tend to fall in love with potential. I think it's a lot tougher than that. It's one of my bigger disappointments in Cooley is that the players clearly had their moments on defense but focus and effort lacked. Epps was not bad on ball; he looks worse than he was because he definitely did the NBA thing of completely giving up when beat (which might have been foul management). He was not as good off ball, and as I said, my god, was he terrible at getting back in transition, which was another thing I dock Cooley for. Perhaps there was too much to teach. And it's not just that Mack was a better ball handler -- the opponent knew Epps was keeping it and was the guy to shoot. So they could pressure with help. Having more than one late game option changes things. You can argue that Cooley should have found others, but when we did, they didn't exactly succeed.
|
|
|
Post by FHillsNYHoya on Apr 18, 2024 12:23:57 GMT -5
Toibu Lawal of VCU just hit the portal. Watched him a ton this year. 6'8" with 49" vertical. Dunks anything near rim and great weak side shot blocker.
Curious what those who unlike me know how to evaluate talent think.
|
|
bluechi
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 646
|
Post by bluechi on Apr 18, 2024 12:52:46 GMT -5
I admit my brain is wired to get as many high impact people as possible now because I want to improve from last year very quickly. But, I also realize you cannot step too much on all the freshman either, otherwise a year from now Cooley could face a slew of more transfers from them, and we cannot afford that. I can understand that thought, for sure. And I'd love to contend for a tournament spot next year as well. But I also think that we need to have a realistic strategy that emphasizes pulling ourselves out of the gutter. And while there are teams that turn around their team entirely in the portal in like a year ... there are also many who try it and fail. Having a tourney-quality team next year would be great. But having another poor team and running off freshmen talent would be a disaster relative to a decent season. So you just have to weigh the odds and manage through it. It's one thing to say you will find developmental minutes, but coaches tend to be hyper competitive and also have to worry about total team dynamics -- does the team quit if they aren't winning; how do the better players feel about losing a game to developmental minutes; how do players feel about a better player now being benched? We tend to fall in love with potential. I think it's a lot tougher than that. It's one of my bigger disappointments in Cooley is that the players clearly had their moments on defense but focus and effort lacked. Epps was not bad on ball; he looks worse than he was because he definitely did the NBA thing of completely giving up when beat (which might have been foul management). He was not as good off ball, and as I said, my god, was he terrible at getting back in transition, which was another thing I dock Cooley for. Perhaps there was too much to teach. And it's not just that Mack was a better ball handler -- the opponent knew Epps was keeping it and was the guy to shoot. So they could pressure with help. Having more than one late game option changes things. You can argue that Cooley should have found others, but when we did, they didn't exactly succeed. in my opinion I think all the switching that they did defensively just wore on the team and it made them look worse than they should have been that switching just did not work for the team at all they were horrible how do you end up with Epps down low guarding Bigs time and time again
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 18, 2024 12:57:48 GMT -5
in my opinion I think all the switching that they did defensively just wore on the team and it made him look worse than they could have been that's switching just did not work for the team at all they were horrible how do you end up with apps download guarding Biggs time and time again That wasn't what killed our defense, though. We started out switching everything, I think to basically kill the opponent's 3 pt chances and in part because that's really easy to execute. That worked, but we couldn't keep anyone in front of us, and when Cook challenged anyone, he committed fouls and we gave up all the offensive boards. As the season wore on, we stopped switching everything and try to implement a system where the players had to read and communicate. They did not do this particularly well. Cook basically stopped challenging anything and just rebounded. We still got beat off the dribble too much and we missed rotations. How much is on the coach and how much is on a set of players who clearly do not focus on defense is something I will never know, but there's plenty of blame to go around. Switching everything has its weaknesses, but I actually think that given the lack of great low post play ... it's something that you can fight off with strength and help.
|
|
|
Post by Lethal_Interjection on Apr 18, 2024 13:29:12 GMT -5
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,329
|
Post by vv83 on Apr 18, 2024 13:29:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure that coaches can afford to worry all that much about using playing time to incentivize players to stay with the program. reality seems to be that any upperclass (non-freshman) who does not think they will be starting the following season is fairly likely to transfer, no matter what kind of playing time they got the previous season. a coach will drive himself nuts trying to perfectly calibrate playing time so nobody gets frustrated and consequently decides to transfer
I think the best a coach can do is to gather as much talent as he can, with as broad a set of complementary skills as possible. then play the guys who play the best/give you the best chance to win. When the season ends- you find out who wants to transfer, you look at the freshmen you have coming in, and you do the best you can to work the transfer portal to fill in the gaps.
Coaches who try to cater to specific players to keep them around next season at the expense of winning games in the current season are playing a bit of a guessing game as to whether the increased playing time will encourage a player to stick around. I just don't think it is worth it to try to thread this needle between player development/satisfaction and on court performance/winning. there are always going to be players who got lots of playing time but still transfer because they think they could lose playing time to incoming frosh/transfers, and/or they think they can get more NIL money somewhere else - no matter how much they played the previous season.
We were so bad the past two years that it is tough to use our experience for examples. But guys like Akok and Styles both got lots of playing time and still transferred because they feared loss of playing time and/or saw better NIL opportunities elsewhere.
It is a tough system if your goal is to develop talent over time. But I just don't think there are many coaches who are going to succeed at a high level with this kind of player development model. Some have still done well this way,, but if the current free agent/NIL system holds - I think we'll soon see player development models struggle more and more. the best programs will be the ones that are best at recruiting the right transfers to complement their 2 or 3 returning foundation players.
This is not intended to be a defense of Cooley, but rather a realistic assessment of the current program building landscape. Within these parameters - I think we are off to a good start this off season. But we could still lose someone like Fielder to a transfer if we bring in someone like Traore to compete with him for minutes. Does that mean we don't bring in Traore? I just don't think you can run a program that way anymore. If you think the player is good enough to potentially help your program, you have to bring him in. If the returning player would rather skip to another school than compete for a starting job - so be it. Because any player could decide to bolt for another school at every transfer portal opportunity these days. If you try to build a program from the position of protecting returning players from the risk of competing with other talented players for playing time for fear of them transferring - than it feels like you are coaching from a perspective that fears competition, and that just does not sound like a winning plan.
|
|
|
Post by bornhoya on Apr 18, 2024 14:36:25 GMT -5
Toibu Lawal of VCU just hit the portal. Watched him a ton this year. 6'8" with 49" vertical. Dunks anything near rim and great weak side shot blocker. Curious what those who unlike me know how to evaluate talent think. Yes if we don’t get JO hope we go hard after this kid
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 18, 2024 15:18:18 GMT -5
I'm not sure that coaches can afford to worry all that much about using playing time to incentivize players to stay with the program. reality seems to be that any upperclass (non-freshman) who does not think they will be starting the following season is fairly likely to transfer, no matter what kind of playing time they got the previous season. a coach will drive himself nuts trying to perfectly calibrate playing time so nobody gets frustrated and consequently decides to transfer I think the best a coach can do is to gather as much talent as he can, with as broad a set of complementary skills as possible. then play the guys who play the best/give you the best chance to win. When the season ends- you find out who wants to transfer, you look at the freshmen you have coming in, and you do the best you can to work the transfer portal to fill in the gaps. Coaches who try to cater to specific players to keep them around next season at the expense of winning games in the current season are playing a bit of a guessing game as to whether the increased playing time will encourage a player to stick around. I just don't think it is worth it to try to thread this needle between player development/satisfaction and on court performance/winning. there are always going to be players who got lots of playing time but still transfer because they think they could lose playing time to incoming frosh/transfers, and/or they think they can get more NIL money somewhere else - no matter how much they played the previous season. We were so bad the past two years that it is tough to use our experience for examples. But guys like Akok and Styles both got lots of playing time and still transferred because they feared loss of playing time and/or saw better NIL opportunities elsewhere. It is a tough system if your goal is to develop talent over time. But I just don't think there are many coaches who are going to succeed at a high level with this kind of player development model. Some have still done well this way,, but if the current free agent/NIL system holds - I think we'll soon see player development models struggle more and more. the best programs will be the ones that are best at recruiting the right transfers to complement their 2 or 3 returning foundation players. This is not intended to be a defense of Cooley, but rather a realistic assessment of the current program building landscape. Within these parameters - I think we are off to a good start this off season. But we could still lose someone like Fielder to a transfer if we bring in someone like Traore to compete with him for minutes. Does that mean we don't bring in Traore? I just don't think you can run a program that way anymore. If you think the player is good enough to potentially help your program, you have to bring him in. If the returning player would rather skip to another school than compete for a starting job - so be it. Because any player could decide to bolt for another school at every transfer portal opportunity these days. If you try to build a program from the position of protecting returning players from the risk of competing with other talented players for playing time for fear of them transferring - than it feels like you are coaching from a perspective that fears competition, and that just does not sound like a winning plan. I agree with almost all of this. One interesting item that arises out of the transfer portal--the deadline to enter is May 1. But portal players do not have to commit to their school by May 1. So, let's say Georgetown doesn't have a big nailed down by May 1 (hopefully we will), at that point if guys decide to stay on our roster, but then we get a commitment from someone after May 1, it is basically forcing the guys to stay who are on the roster as of May 1. Granted, it's not a lot of leverage for coaches at all. And my guess is that on April 30/May 1, we will see a rush of some guys to the portal (though hopefully not at Georgetown!). At least having that date fairly early does limit the ability of non-graduate transfers to bolt. Of course, graduate transfers, or people who later become graduate transfers (like Akok) can still bolt basically anytime.
|
|
hoyas315
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,102
|
Post by hoyas315 on Apr 18, 2024 15:40:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 18, 2024 16:53:05 GMT -5
Williams' had horrible stats at Louisville and played a good bit. He's 6'5, which is nice, and was apparently heralded as a shooter in high school, but shot horribly this year. We've already had our fair share of shooters in this program who cannot shoot. I don't want to add to that list. If this is more of a backup/get a younger guy on the bench sort of thing fine, but if we want to be much better, I find it hard to see someone like Williams getting a ton of time barring significant improvement.
|
|