SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 16, 2006 11:52:54 GMT -5
Ewing is going to find himself wide open from three this year many, many times. Just like Brandon was last year. He should take those shots and make them at a reasonable clip.
I have no idea why people hate the three-pointer so much on this board, but you simply cannot throw it inside every possession and expect to get a good shot. You can't play 3 on 5 like you are proposing, Giga, where Ewing and Sapp are non-weapons as the opposing team doubles down on our big men.
Our offense was one of the best in the country last year, and that includes our ability to hit OPEN three pointers with five or our six major rotation members. When did this become a bad thing? Or is it only a good thing when the Dallas Mavericks or Mountaineers do it?
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 16, 2006 12:01:29 GMT -5
If it wasn't for guys like Wallace, Cook and Owens our offense would have been far less efficient last year. Due to the loss of 3 point shooting, I expect our offense to be less efficient this year.
We will need Sapp, Ewing, Summers and whoever the third guard is to at least hit some threes to minimize that loss. If they barely take any 3s and make 25% of those they do take, I'm not sure our improved defense and rebounding will make up for our overall offensive losses.
|
|
Locker
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,265
|
Post by Locker on Jul 16, 2006 12:27:18 GMT -5
Agreed. If we make the Final Four next season, it will be because of a great offense, not a great defense. And you can't be a great offense if you can't make threes.
How's Tyler Crawford's perimeter shooting look this summer?
|
|
JB5
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 690
|
Post by JB5 on Jul 16, 2006 12:33:19 GMT -5
I sat in the midst of a number of Terp fans yesterday and was treated to a great deal of jealousy about this year's Hoya team. For several streches of teh Clydes-M&A game, Roy, Spann and Eggerson had the announcer adding "...of Georgetown" after every basket. I was impressed by Marc's game. He was finding the right spots on the court, playing good D and made some nice passes, especially to Spann. Too bad none of the GMU guys seemed to remember that passing was an option or he would have had several more wide open shots. Sapp played well but was out of position (as a 3) for much of the game and was ignored by the guards. Hibbert was unstoppable.
In the Tombs game, I was impressed with Macklin's quickness underneath. Summers looks to be a complete player. We'll miss Bowman much less with him around. The trouble was that Green, Macklin and Summers had a tendency to group together in the same areas of the floor. With some practice, they should get better at spacing and will be tough to stop. For a short time, Jammers tried putting Vasquez on Macklin. Rivers and Green both saw the mismatch and fed Vernon for easy buckets. Rivers has a great handle, crashes the boards well and isn't afraid to try to create off the drive. His shot, however, is a bit of an adventure.
Clydes-Tombs will be interesting. Nobody has been able to stop Roy, but Clydes has no one who has the size and quickness to guard Green and Summers. My prediction is that Roy and Jeff each score 30 and the Tombs win on a Summers J as time expires.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 16, 2006 12:56:20 GMT -5
If we go to the Final Four, it is because we have a good offense and a good defense. But we simply can't have two perimeter players who won't take threes. BC got away with that style for a while, but it is a huge handicap.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 16, 2006 12:56:45 GMT -5
Ewing is going to find himself wide open from three this year many, many times. Just like Brandon was last year. He should take those shots and make them at a reasonable clip. I have no idea why people hate the three-pointer so much on this board, but you simply cannot throw it inside every possession and expect to get a good shot. You can't play 3 on 5 like you are proposing, Giga, where Ewing and Sapp are non-weapons as the opposing team doubles down on our big men. Our offense was one of the best in the country last year, and that includes our ability to hit OPEN three pointers with five or our six major rotation members. When did this become a bad thing? Or is it only a good thing when the Dallas Mavericks or Mountaineers do it? Yeah sure, take an open three. That's fine. But take two dribbles and take a 14-footer too. Sapp and Ewing are really good at that. Why do you have to take a three when a two is there and the guys shooting it are more comfortable from that range? It's not "3 on 5" because your other guys take higher percentage 2s rather than forcing themselves to take a 20-footer. In fact, I'd argue the other way. Your offense is only as good as your ability to take high percentage shots. I'm not against open threes, but there's a reason teams leave a guy alone from outside. It's probably because he can't shoot a three. If our guys can shoot 33% or better from outside, this argument is moot. They should take that shot if it's open. But if they can't, we shouldn't have them bang their heads against the wall from 20-feet until they magically make them. We should have them taking mid-range shots with which they are more comfortable and can hit. A flat, chest-high three from Brandon was as good as a turnover in most cases and especially in high-pressure situations. If I didn't see any of those this year, I'd be happy.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 16, 2006 13:18:37 GMT -5
The problem is that the 3 is open because the D is sagging off. If they take a few dribbles, all of a sudden they aren't open anymore.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Jul 16, 2006 13:32:32 GMT -5
with regard to the - why not take the 15 footer instead of the 3ball, a) hoyaboy's comment, and b) like it or not, giga, present-day college ball places an inordinate amount of importance of being able to hit long-range shots - in reality, many players, for better or worse, are much more comfortable with 3pt range vs. midrange jumpers...you can lament that development as much as you want...but you dont see midrange jumpers nearly as often as you used to...a lot of this also has to do with the fact that you get an EXTRA point.
back to my original post though, it just seems like very successful teams generally have a sharpshooter that they can rely on in back-breaking type situations where a clogged lane results in a perimter dish...sure there are successful exceptions (e.g., LSU) but look at Florida - that kid Humphrey couldn't do anything EXCEPT hit big 3s...but he was hugely important down the stretch for the Gators. like it or not, it is an necessary element for top teams
ADDENDUM: This is NOT an invitation for hifigaytor to post about his beloved squad.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 16, 2006 13:59:09 GMT -5
Gerald Riley was hanging around yesterday - I was thinking about how useful he would be for us this year. He was simply ahead of his time.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,435
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jul 16, 2006 15:02:03 GMT -5
IAnd as for the Mourning/Mutombo comparison, Jeff Green himself will surpass the combined career assist total for Dik and 'Zo by the third game of the season. We're not talking "twin towers" where one center has to play out of position. We're talking about a versatile "point forward" who can do a lot more to soften the defense. I'd go as far as saying Hibbert-Green is better than Mutombo-Mourning because while they may not be better individually (though with Hibbert vs. Dikembe it is certainly debatable), they don't have this fatal flaw. Thank you for saving me some time, Giga. I don't know why people keep insisting is another M&M scenario basd upon those same reasons you pointed out. Gentlemen (and ladies if you're out there), must I bring out my old Big East magazines and recount how awful the talent surrounding M&M after Bryant and Tillmon departed (as well as David Edwards, Michael Tate)?Because if I....Oh, snap! I just happen to have my Big East 1990-1991 preiew magazine right next to me. What are the odds? Hmmm. Lets open it up and see what it says: After commenting on M&M and the guys who departed it moves on to... "The Hoyas will also see what junior guard Ronny Thompson has learned after two seasons of reserve duty. He has a fine shooting touch and is quick, but his father might ask him to be more of a playmaker."( Cue laughter) .... "The backcourt also returns sophomore Antoine Stoudemire and Kayode Vann." (Who?) .... "Sophore forward Mike Sabol -- who averaged just 5.8 minutes and 1.3 points points in 17 games -- is the lone frontcourt veteran"(bwha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!) .... "The gems of the recruiting class are .....Charles Harrison and Robert Churchwell and guard Joey Brown."(compared to Macklin, Summers and Ewing that threesome isn't all that good. In time Jeremiah may even end up being better than those three 90s recruits) .... "DC recruit Lamont Morgan...."(::groan: .... "Cincinnati Technical Junior College transfer, Bria Kelly, a 6-6 forward, joins the frontcourt scramble for minutes"..... (I appreciated Kelly's hard work but he wasn't close to being an impact player for the team). .... "Assistant coach Craig Esherick also did some long-distance scouting to land incoming 'projects" in 7'2 Pascal Fleurry (Canada) 6-9 Vladimir Bosanac (Yugoslavia)".... (nuff said) Funny thing is this recruiting class was ranked fifth or sixth in a 9 team Big East. Today it may rank 20th of the sixteen Big East teams! Anyway lets compare: Mutombo and Mourning were the only returning starters from the previous ('89-'90) team. The players that ended up starting next to them were three freshmen players, with only Harrison being a consensus top 100 recruit. THe majority of the players off the bench ended up being (after Sabol and Stoudemire transferred during the first semester) players who were new to Gtown hoops and in some cases new to college basketball. The current Hoya team returns three starters. Its satrting shooting guard position is almost certain to go to a player who has at least one season of NCAA hoops under his belt. The last front court spot has a good chance to also go to a player (Ewing, Spann, Egerson, etc) with one year of big time college hoops experience. If not it will go to a highly regarded freshmen with a prep reputation far greater than any of the freshmen brought in for the '90-'91 team. The M&M team had two legit centers trying to play on the floor at the same time. Neither was a very good passer. Neither had a true face up game. Outside of the occassional jumper by Zo both needed to play in the paint to be effective on offense and as a result were not a good fit on offense. The current team has two big men who are a better fit because one can actually be just as effective on the perimeter as he is inside. The other can make himself useful on the perieter by setting screens and looking for cutters. One is an extremely gifted passer. The other is an above average passer for a center. The team of the past had one big man who scored points not necessarily because he had true legitimate moves (except for his "down-hook") but becuase he was so tall, so long and so good at getting offensive rebounds that he almost scored over defenders by default. The current team has to returning stars that can be true legitimate offensive weapons. The '90-'91 team introduced about three dudes who over the course of four years never developed into a shooting threat. The current team has a returning starter in Wallace who connected on over 40% of his three point attempts last season and is expected to keep getting better as a player. Jeff Green has also proven to be a more reliable three point threat than almost anyone on the '90-'91 team. And, well, there are rumors about the Dagger! The '90-'91 team lacked quality depth. The current team....lets just say that Thornton, Spann, Egerson, Summers, Macklin or possibly even Crawford could probablly start on that early 90s Gtown team. Actually would Jeremiah be a step down as a frosh compared to Joey Brown? Brown may have been more ready mentally but Rivers seems to have more physical tools to wok with. The M&M squad had a coach who did not (how can I be kind) devote time to putting together offensive schemes such as, uh, spacing and passing. The current coach works a bit harder on that front. One advantage (other than shot blocking and perhaps brute force) tha I would give to the early 90s team: the BIg East was weaker during that season. And for all those worrying about who besides Wallace can shoot the word hasn't changed about Thornton: he is still considered to be the best shooter on the team. He can't help the team though if on the bench.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,435
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jul 16, 2006 15:08:54 GMT -5
If it wasn't for guys like Wallace, Cook and Owens our offense would have been far less efficient last year. Due to the loss of 3 point shooting, I expect our offense to be less efficient this year. Aren't we all being a tad forgetful? There were times last season in which people were disgusted with our three departed seniors. There were games in which the threes were not dropping and those guys as a result disappeared because they couldn't take their men off the dribble, wouldn't take them off the dribble or could not finish when they did. There was a reason, even one week after the Duke game, that Dick "Hoops' Weiss wrote that the team's three most important players were Green, Hibbert and Wallace. And as much as I think the guys have been slighted by NBA scouts, there is a reason why Green and Hibbert excited scouts far more than the three players who graduated.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,435
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jul 16, 2006 15:15:46 GMT -5
Ewing is going to find himself wide open from three this year many, many times. Just like Brandon was last year. He should take those shots and make them at a reasonable clip. I have no idea why people hate the three-pointer so much on this board, but you simply cannot throw it inside every possession and expect to get a good shot. You can't play 3 on 5 like you are proposing, Giga, where Ewing and Sapp are non-weapons as the opposing team doubles down on our big men. Our offense was one of the best in the country last year, and that includes our ability to hit OPEN three pointers with five or our six major rotation members. When did this become a bad thing? Or is it only a good thing when the Dallas Mavericks or Mountaineers do it? How well did it work out for them in the end? The Mountaineers would have killed for a guy who could have drive to the hole routinely. As highly as I think of Ewing I still think when it comes to jumpers he should take the Grant Hill-Scottie Pippen approach: take the mid-range jumper. The 15 footer. With his height he will be able to get that shot off even if defenses have less of a distance to race out to reach him. This worked for Wade playing alongside Shaq. The three pointer is a low percentage shot. Guys like Wade and (Hill at one time) were more efficient by not taking too many long range bombs. What's the big deal by NOT taking a bunch of three point shots all game long. If III wanted primarily a three-point shooting team then he has recruited a lot of the wrong players. But I think (as he himself said) that he knows how to tweak the offense to fit the STRENGTH of his players rather than to fit the scheme of a particular offense.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 16, 2006 15:33:07 GMT -5
The problem is that the 3 is open because the D is sagging off. If they take a few dribbles, all of a sudden they aren't open anymore. When a defense sags, they WANT you to get out of offensive rhythm and jack threes. But that's exactly what you shouldn't do. The king of countering this is Jeff Green who came to the high post and just drilled a foul-line jumper a couple times versus sagging 2-3s. Keep the defense moving and you'll get those mid-range jumpers from the corners or foul-line extended. If a player "isn't open any more" from 15 feet after a few passes, chances are the sagging zone is no longer sagging and passing lanes to the post have opened up. It's not like the only option to attacking a zone is to shoot over it. And if we have guys who are better in the mid-range coupled with an outside threat, it's better to go into the heart of the zone and open it up that way than to just try to bomb away.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 16, 2006 15:37:43 GMT -5
If it wasn't for guys like Wallace, Cook and Owens our offense would have been far less efficient last year. Due to the loss of 3 point shooting, I expect our offense to be less efficient this year. Aren't we all being a tad forgetful? There were times last season in which people were disgusted with our three departed seniors. There were games in which the threes were not dropping and those guys as a result disappeared because they couldn't take their men off the dribble, wouldn't take them off the dribble or could not finish when they did. There was a reason, even one week after the Duke game, that Dick "Hoops' Weiss wrote that the team's three most important players were Green, Hibbert and Wallace. And as much as I think the guys have been slighted by NBA scouts, there is a reason why Green and Hibbert excited scouts far more than the three players who graduated. First off, I didn't comment on Bowman. Second, I never said that Cook and Owens were superstars; just that their three point shooting (along with Wallace) was a major contributor to our offensive efficiency. So, I basically have no idea what the point of your response was. GIGA - sure, if Pat, Sapp, Summers, etc. can't shoot even a respectable clip from 3, then they can try to attack a sagging zone in other ways. The simple fact, however, is that the best way to hurt a zone that sags is with threes, and the best way to help our big men and keep it from sagging is the threat of threes. If we only have one guy that consistently hit threes, our offense won't be as efficient as last year. I really don't see any way around that, unless those 40% shots from 3 are suddenly turned into 60% shots from 2 - which is highly, highly unlikely.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 16, 2006 16:58:54 GMT -5
So why are we so worried again? I think we can find another guy to shoot passably from three if that's all we need. But I still don't think we need Pat to shoot any threes to be effective.
Put it this way regarding efficiency: If I told you Ewing would average 8.6ppg, shoot 53% from the floor, and have 1.44pps would you complain? Those would have been Brandon's numbers last year had he never taken a three. Did we gain any efficiency from Brandon's threes or keep any defenses honest? Probably not. Bowman went 5 for his last 28 from three. By the end of the year teams were as happy as could be to see him shoot from out there. Also the 1.44pps would have made him the second-most efficient player on the team because while he didn't shoot 60% from the floor, he did get to the line (and he didn't even shoot well there). That's the added bonus of attacking a defense versus shooting over it. It can lead to free points.
So I hope Sapp or Crawford is passable. If Summers is, it's a bonus. I also expect Jeff to regain some of his freshman form shooting. But I still think we should our frontcourt moving towards the basket as much as possible and we can do that without sacrificing efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by daytonahoya31 on Jul 16, 2006 17:45:19 GMT -5
I think the people who think we aren't going to be a good shooting team need to chill out. Wallace can shoot the ball, and he's made big shots in the past. Green can shoot the ball, and he's made big shots in the past. I think everyone can attest to that. I think, of the three departing seniors, we'll miss ashanti.....that's it. At least in my opinion. Bowman was athletic, but he's not as athletic as Ewing. He won't erase shots from the weak side like Ewing will, and he doesn't finish nearly as well as Ewing will in the paint. I think everyone has shouted at the t.v. at one point or another for Brandon to go up strong instead of taking the ball to the rack, pump faking and missing a lay-up. Owens was a good shooter......when he could spot up and when he had all day to get the shot off. Summers can shoot the ball from deep, take the ball to the basket off the dribble, and post up. Think of those three skill, and mentally incorperate it into the offense and you have some good possibilities. Ashanti hit some big shots, shots that I'm not sure sapp can hit if he were in the same position. Plus, ashanti was good off the dribble. Still, Jessie is a GREAT rebounder for a guard. And he's a great defender to boot. Those gaurds who smoked us last year won't this season. Not with sapp having a year under his belt. Plus, jessie is very creative off the dribble. We can get the shooting from somewhere else. I'm not saying that the three seniors we lost weren't good players. But to make it seem like we won't have adequate shooting? I think it's the opposite. I think our offense will have more felxibility than ever.
|
|
|
Post by daytonahoya31 on Jul 16, 2006 17:48:33 GMT -5
I think the people who think we aren't going to be a good shooting team need to chill out. Wallace can shoot the ball, and he's made big shots in the past. Green can shoot the ball, and he's made big shots in the past. I think everyone can attest to that. I think, of the three departing seniors, we'll miss ashanti.....that's it. At least in my opinion. Bowman was athletic, but he's not as athletic as Ewing. He won't erase shots from the weak side like Ewing will, and he doesn't finish nearly as well as Ewing will in the paint. I think everyone has shouted at the t.v. at one point or another for Brandon to go up strong instead of taking the ball to the rack, pump faking and missing a lay-up. Owens was a good shooter......when he could spot up and when he had all day to get the shot off. Summers can shoot the ball from deep, take the ball to the basket off the dribble, and post up. Think of those three skill, and mentally incorperate it into the offense and you have some good possibilities. Ashanti hit some big shots, shots that I'm not sure sapp can hit if he were in the same position. Plus, ashanti was good off the dribble. Still, Jessie is a GREAT rebounder for a guard. And he's a great defender to boot. Those gaurds who smoked us last year won't this season. Not with sapp having a year under his belt. Plus, jessie is very creative off the dribble. We can get the shooting from somewhere else. I'm not saying that the three seniors we lost weren't good players. But to make it seem like we won't have adequate shooting? I think it's the opposite. I think our offense will have more felxibility than ever.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 16, 2006 18:10:00 GMT -5
Ewing is going to find himself wide open from three this year many, many times. Just like Brandon was last year. He should take those shots and make them at a reasonable clip. I have no idea why people hate the three-pointer so much on this board, but you simply cannot throw it inside every possession and expect to get a good shot. You can't play 3 on 5 like you are proposing, Giga, where Ewing and Sapp are non-weapons as the opposing team doubles down on our big men. Our offense was one of the best in the country last year, and that includes our ability to hit OPEN three pointers with five or our six major rotation members. When did this become a bad thing? Or is it only a good thing when the Dallas Mavericks or Mountaineers do it? How well did it work out for them in the end? The Mountaineers would have killed for a guy who could have drive to the hole routinely. As highly as I think of Ewing I still think when it comes to jumpers he should take the Grant Hill-Scottie Pippen approach: take the mid-range jumper. The 15 footer. With his height he will be able to get that shot off even if defenses have less of a distance to race out to reach him. This worked for Wade playing alongside Shaq. The three pointer is a low percentage shot. Guys like Wade and (Hill at one time) were more efficient by not taking too many long range bombs. What's the big deal by NOT taking a bunch of three point shots all game long. If III wanted primarily a three-point shooting team then he has recruited a lot of the wrong players. But I think (as he himself said) that he knows how to tweak the offense to fit the STRENGTH of his players rather than to fit the scheme of a particular offense. Did I say there was anything wrong with driving to the hole? Giga made a ludicrous argument that no one but Jeff and Jon should shoot ANY threes. I disagreed. Aren't you the guy who claims that Ewing has a good 3 point shot? Good enough to shoot 35%+? Then why give up the open shot, which, by the way, is worth THREE points. The reason why mid-range shots are dead is that for an extra three or four feet and probably less defensive pressure, I can get a WHOLE EXTRA POINT. And Giga, where has anyone said that the only way to attack a zone is to shoot over it, or that no one wants people to drive? YOU ARE MAKING UP COUNTERARGUMENTS. You said that Jeff and Jon should be the only ones making threes. That's just silly.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,435
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jul 16, 2006 18:13:39 GMT -5
Aren't we all being a tad forgetful? There were times last season in which people were disgusted with our three departed seniors. There were games in which the threes were not dropping and those guys as a result disappeared because they couldn't take their men off the dribble, wouldn't take them off the dribble or could not finish when they did. There was a reason, even one week after the Duke game, that Dick "Hoops' Weiss wrote that the team's three most important players were Green, Hibbert and Wallace. And as much as I think the guys have been slighted by NBA scouts, there is a reason why Green and Hibbert excited scouts far more than the three players who graduated. First off, I didn't comment on Bowman. Second, I never said that Cook and Owens were superstars; just that their three point shooting (along with Wallace) was a major contributor to our offensive efficiency. So, I basically have no idea what the point of your response was. Geez. Let me try spelling it out: you're overreacting to the departure of those guys. One can argue that an offense in which higher percentage mid-range shots are taken and a spike in free throw attempts occurs (thanks to driving the basketball like the best teams in college hoops do) is more efficient than an offense in which three of the team's top players (Wallace, DJ and Cook) made their living mostly from 20 feet out. If III doesn't have the long range bombers this season he has to adjust and switch up the offense. And, yes, that may include more full court pressure which leads to much more fast break opportunities (which is also a more efficient way of scoring than jacking up a three with five seconds left on the shot clock). People need to stop talking up those offensive efficiency results from last season because much of it is a mirage. The truth is last season, that despite III's repeated insistence that the Princeton system wasn't about slowing the game down, the Hoya offense too often became a version of stall ball. You can be efficient without burning 30 seconds of the shot clock every other possession. You can be efficient and take quality shots without heaving up three pointers at the expense of driving to the rack or posting up more. And when the efficiency of the offense seems too dependent on whether or not a desperation three pointer goes in its clear there is much room for improvement.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 16, 2006 18:13:57 GMT -5
Put it this way regarding efficiency: If I told you Ewing would average 8.6ppg, shoot 53% from the floor, and have 1.44pps would you complain? Those would have been Brandon's numbers last year had he never taken a three. This a gross misuse of statistics. If Brandon had never taken a three, no one would have guarded him closely enough to make a backdoor cut or do his throw dribble effectively. Oh, and MCI, the offense last year wasn't a mirage. It was that effective. There's no way to argue that we scored X number of points in Y possessions. Does that mean that we can't speed it up? No. But don't talk down how effective last year was just because you want the Hoyas to run. It's pathetically transparent.
|
|