|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 3, 2024 16:24:48 GMT -5
Is that a joke? How the heck has he shown stubbornness? He's changed a ton of things. He’s had to with these embarrassing losses. The perimeter defense we started with is pretty much gone. The embarrassing wide-open lay-ups were too much. At least the wide-open 3s are harder to hit. You've avoided the question. How is he stubborn? Just because he refuses to play Ryan (whom you inexplicably believe is the answer to all problems)?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 3, 2024 16:22:27 GMT -5
All the talk of recruiting show how little is understood about recruiting on the board. Recruiting is a 5 to 6 year effort. A program is built over years and with transfers now, the many transfer pick-ups are also players initially recruited. Cooley came in to Georgetown with only 3 scholarship players (Ryan, Heath, and Bristol) who likely would be players coming off the bench in other programs. Not having Cooley lined up early meant he only was able to pull Fielder with him. Cooley's depth of recruiting starts next year with his long time recruiting efforts coming then. Ewing left and utter mess in his wake. Ewing not being a college coach prior to Georgetown meant he had zero recruiting book and Oates had mostly retired and only had a few players he was helping land in good spots. Cook, Epps, and Styles are good adds for Cooley. Rowan wanted to come to Georgetown but Ewing had no interest. Next year there is a good recruiting class on its way. There will likely be good additions as transfers as well, as Cooley always has been able to fill in gaps with transfers. But, for this year it is going to be tough. Recruiting is not a 5 to 6-yr effort nowadays. That’s just a convenient excuse. Did you see Butler last night or is that because Matta is better than Cooley? Cooley was lined up early if you believe Fanta (and others) who told everyone through that documentary. Ewing left a mess in that no one wanted to play for him, but with what else? Cooley was supposed to be different. He found out the hard way. Do you believe that next year’s recruiting will be affected by this year’s record, like what happened this off-season? Matta? They were 9th in the league last year (his first year). They've been good (not great) this year. If we aren't in a vaguely similar place next year, you'll have an argument.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 3, 2024 16:16:32 GMT -5
It's early but it looks Georgetown got Patrick Ewing 2.0 and the wrong guy again. I don’t want to think so, but at least he’s as stubborn and set in his ways as the Thompson/Ewings. Is that a joke? How the heck has he shown stubbornness? He's changed a ton of things.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 3, 2024 15:31:50 GMT -5
A far worse performance that I expected. We are not competitive in any way. It will be interesting to see what Cooley says in the press conference. “I failed again preparing them in 7 days time” just won’t cut it again. What do you want him to say? We aren't good. And they're one of the best teams in the country and they're shooting the lights out.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 27, 2024 17:28:29 GMT -5
I'm not arguing for more wins, I'm arguing for better play from the players currently on the team especially on the defensive end. It's also hard for me to buy the "development angle" when RB & Fielder aren't seeing near the minutes as the older players Fielder played 5 minutes today and has regressed as the season has gone on. Cooley clearly doesn’t trust him against high major bigs. Can’t defend anybody at this stage of his career. Shows some promise offensively. I think Fielder has shown much more confidence offensively with his outside shooting as the year has gone on. And defensively, I don't think he has regressed. He's just playing against bigger and better players. He's a valuable piece. He knows what he needs to work on.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 27, 2024 15:41:38 GMT -5
Not sure where your getting that - my main complaint is that he built this roster and has coached it to 1-8. I get that we were in a bad place. But we’re still there. The team should not be this bad this season. This year’s team is much better than last years if you watch the games. But the record won’t show it. And I get close losses don’t really count for anything, and the metrics still suck. But from an eye test, we are better making adjustments, inbounds plays, team cohesiveness, etc. I do think Cooley overestimated what he could get out of Brumbaugh and Fielder. Though , I think he’s gotten more out Cook than he expected. Also to discount the fact we have a very strong recruiting class next year, isn’t viewing the big picture. We are much, much better this year overall. The metrics do show it and if you were to look at only 2024 (that is, just BE play onward), I suspect it's even more obvious statistically. We are improving. You would surely rather have more wins to show for it than we do. And it's fair to criticize that we "should" be better than we are (but that's pretty amorphous). Our defense sucks. No question. But our coach is very creatively scheming to try to eliminate issues. At least four different defenses this game. Each presented problems for PC at times (and each didn't!). Cant scheme completely around lack of talent but we are trying. I'm not a moral victory guy. You don't get wins for losing. But the goal this year is improvement from the team and signs of life from guys we will have going forward.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 24, 2024 13:40:51 GMT -5
Conference play numbers so far. Player A - 34.5% overall shooting 43.1 (2pt) 25.5 (3pt) Player B - 34.8% overall shooting 42.1 (2pt) 29.6 (3pt) Nearly identical defensive impact. Player A is a stud and future all conference player. Player B can’t wait until he’s gone. Player A is better but a lot of people here are blinded by usage. Player A is Epps and Player B is Massoud. Obviously the big difference with Epps is his ability to get to the free throw line. But I certainly think an argument can be made that he's vastly overrated as a player, particularly by some of his biggest supporters on this board who like to use advanced metrics instead of watching the games. A couple key problems with Epps: 1) The way we run offense now, if he's having an off game, we have almost zero chance to win. We completely rely on him playing hero ball and scoring 20+ points per game. 2) Because he is so ball-dominant, other guys can't get in the flow on offense. Our non-Epps players generally stand around offensively and watch Epps, try to figure out what he's going to do, and look to get open for a kickout or crash the glass to get any chance to score on their own. On top of the way Cooley runs his offense through Epps, which can't be good for team chemistry, Epps is a horrendous defensive player. Opponents look to drive on him and post him up whenever they can. These problems are exacerbated when Heath is on the floor instead of Brumbaugh. While Heath can score better than Brumbaugh, he's another black hole offensively and like Epps, he's a minus defender. When Brumbaugh is in, Epps can play off the ball and the offense moves better. Additionally, while Brumbaugh is not fleet of foot, he's generally a better position defender than Heath and certainly a better team defensive player off the ball. When you take all of these things into consideration, including the fact that we're 8-11 with 13 games to go, I'm surprised Cooley has shifted minutes away from Brumbaugh and to Heath. Granted, Brumbaugh's been very bad lately offensively, and Heath can get hot like he did against Xavier. But Heath's not going to be around next year and it seems like a good time to ensure Brumbaugh (and Fielder) get 25+ mpg so the staff can figure out if they're going to be part of what they want to do next season. You don't have to use advanced stats to better see the difference. You note the FTs, which is meaningful. It's a five PPG difference. Epps does have 28 assists against 21 turnovers. Far from wonderful, but Ish is only 5 assists and 7 turnovers, which is poor. Of course, Ish has more boards. I agree completely that his style of play leads to ball watching. And he scores generally outside the bounds of offensive structure. But he's also the guy who always has the ball in his hands as the shot clock winds down because he can create.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 24, 2024 11:58:44 GMT -5
I don't mind trying anything defensively at this point. But I think there's every reason to think it would actually make things worse as hard as that may seem to believe. If you truly pack in a 2-3 (that is, tell the five to not rotate at all), you're leaving guys wide open (and I mean truly wide open) from three on every single possession without the offense having to do anything but play pattycake. They're going to make # ton of those. You can't foul hard up high anymore or it's a flagrant. And that's the only way to prevent in a sure fire way a basket from in close. I addressed the open 3s in the other post. As to fouling, the idea is stopping the ball, making your presence felt, without the flagrant foul, just like we see our opponents doing it to us. A hard foul going for the ball will not be called a flagrant unless it’s obvious to make contact with the player instead of the ball or it’s to the head. Right, most teams don't have five plus shooters. But all you have to do is screen for the ones that do. It's not very hard to scheme it if you know the defensive five isn't leaving the post. I think you underestimate the ease of fouling to make your presence felt. A lot of the baskets last night were back to the basket post moves. A lot of the fouls in that scenario would just be on the floor. It's not that easy to do. Again, I'm fine trying it. I really am. We just are going to have to agree to disagree on whether it will work.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 24, 2024 10:36:10 GMT -5
I don't think it was an effort issue defensively. We just aren't very skilled and got bullied by bigger guys. We tried a bunch of different things schematically and none really worked. Some passive press. We jumped the first pass in the front court. Man. 3-2. 2-3. Switching all screens. Hedging. Doubled the post ....didn't double. You can't scheme your way out of bad. You’re right in that Cooley tried a bunch of stuff on defense. Moreover, during the post-game presser, he acknowledged that he needs to fix the defense asap. That said, Cooley didn’t try Mutombo bullying in the middle of a zone. Was he even available last night? Our walk-ons played, but not Ryan even though Drew was off offensively (0 pts?!), not rebounding and getting bullied inside. Yes, Ryan looks like he doesn’t have one mean bone in his body, but he does have 5 fouls to give. Make them shoot FTs instead of easy 2s. I don't mind trying anything defensively at this point. But I think there's every reason to think it would actually make things worse as hard as that may seem to believe. If you truly pack in a 2-3 (that is, tell the five to not rotate at all), you're leaving guys wide open (and I mean truly wide open) from three on every single possession without the offense having to do anything but play pattycake. They're going to make # ton of those. You can't foul hard up high anymore or it's a flagrant. And that's the only way to prevent in a sure fire way a basket from in close.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 24, 2024 9:28:36 GMT -5
We were terrible last night. But it is one game. Progress usually isn't linear. We played well the previous three games. Didnt play particularly well the three games before that (despite winning one). And so on.
The overall trend line remains (in my view) positive this year.
I don't think it was an effort issue defensively. We just aren't very skilled and got bullied by bigger guys. We tried a bunch of different things schematically and none really worked. Some passive press. We jumped the first pass in the front court. Man. 3-2. 2-3. Switching all screens. Hedging. Doubled the post ....didn't double. You can't scheme your way out of bad.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 17, 2024 17:51:12 GMT -5
I think it simply boils down to him generally being no higher than third at his position on the depth chart either last year or this year. When you're third, barring injuries or fouls, you don't play.
Cook is better on both ends. Fielder is way better offensively and probably not much worse defensively (even at the five). Cook and Fielder easily can split 40 minutes without either being tired. Even giving Fielder time at the four. And you're not going to just throw him minutes to develop him, particularly when that might take minutes from a guy like Fielder you are trying to develop.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 16, 2024 13:10:06 GMT -5
I mean, this would be the lowest possible bar to clear, would it not? I think we were all assuming both offense and defense would be much, much better than Ewing’s last 2 years. Were you all assuming that? I wasn't assuming much of anything. I was certainly hoping it would be better, but on a team where we returned a no-defense SG with a 102 O Rating last year, a center who played 5% of minutes and a defensive role player, I wasn't assuming much of anything at all. I certainly hoped we'd be better, but I didn't assume we'd be much, much better. We've played much better the last three games; my commentary is just that I can see elements improving and I suspect that by the end of the season, we will be a better team barring injuries. Many of you here are very ready to judge this team as a finished product after every. single. game. When no one but Heath, Cook and Epps had ever played more than a third of their team's minutes previous to this (Massoud and Bristol at a third, Styles at less than 11%. Do I wish it was moving faster? Of course, in some alternate reality is it moving faster? Probably. Is it nuts to think maybe this team maybe still has some steep learning curve to go? No, although we all know the ceiling on this talent isn't particularly that high. The last point is the most salient (although I agree with the rest also). Jimmy and Joes beat Xs and Os. And they do it regularly. The better talent wins. Other things (scheme, fit, experience, luck, in-game adjustments, game prep) help for sure. Indeed,they can be the difference in a close game. But talent trumps. At any given time, how often is there a matchup on the floor that is a "clear win" on both sides of the court for Georgetown? Epps maybe more often than not. And sometimes I guess at the three. But I would suggest we almost never do at the 4 or 5 or at the other guard. It's awfully hard to win that way. So, you look for player improvement (maybe our 1, 2, 3, or 5 can become clear wins!). And all the other issues. But at the end of the day....
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 9, 2024 20:45:15 GMT -5
The offense broke down completely after we got the lead. We just held. Have to keep some movement even if you want it to end up with Epps at the end. The offense continues to be very one dimensional generally. When they go in of course it looks good. And when they don't ...
I'm encouraged by the matchup 3-2. It's an unusual zone and likely tough to prep for. You have to get the ball in the middle from the corner rather than from top or from wing. And that's the opposite of what you're used to. We have done increasingly well with it over several games. Eventually teams figure it out (and likely more will prep for it). But I like it as a change of pace and hope we use it aggressively.
Maybe he will get quicker and better but I actually prefer Rowan off the ball at this point. I think if he gets a pass off a screen he has a better chance of going downhill and he can be effective when he does that.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 30, 2023 7:19:33 GMT -5
No one argues that the US is a pure democracy (such strawmen exist in political theory classes but not in the real world), but it is a constitutional republic that is dependent upon and needs the support of the citizenry in order to survive and flourish. You cannot have one person make determinations independent of the laws of that constitutional republic including the due process provisions of the Bill of Rights and elsewhere. If you were to do that the necessary character and spirit of the law would be spiked and the lack of public support would kill the constitutional republic as surely as any soldier's bullet. If an individual has engaged in an insurrection there is a law concerning it that the person could then be prosecuted for violating through a fair trial protecting his rights. Upon a conviction, an elective/appointed official (not sure what applies in Maine) could then properly cite the conviction and make a decision that the citizenry could support. This nation is very close to breaking apart now and cannot afford arbitrary and needlessly incendiary actions like the one taken in Maine. No person in a position of public trust has the right to create and prosecute their own law. I don't disagree, as I said, on the due process issues (although the Constitution quite clearly does not require a criminal conviction in this situation). But it IS very much an anti-democratic provision. So this notion of "let the voters decide" is precisely what the provision is designed to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 29, 2023 23:55:25 GMT -5
I don't know what the Democrat game is here. They are either trying to make the Supreme Court an issue by forcing it to rule (ruling the obvious that in a democracy a single individual cannot usurp a court of law-where was Trump ever convicted of insurrection?) or maybe they are the really "sick puppies" Trump describes and they are trying to provoke large scale violence which they think will help them. If ever there was a time for a Democrat like say a Jimmy Carter or Joe Lieberman to come forward and say "enough is enough, America is a Democracy", the time is now. The Constitution exists, in part, to provide guard rails on pure democracy. The people can't approve a law that violates the Constitution. That is a feature, not a bug. The people or their representatives can't successfully pass (and enforce) laws that violate the Constitution. If "America were a democracy," we would no doubt have sensible gun restrictions (just as an example). This is no different. The Constitution does not permit the voters to elect someone below a certain age as President. Nor does the constitution permit the voters to elect someone as president who is not natural born. Those are guardrails. And so is this. I'm sympathetic to the argument that there should be far more due process than a secretary of State making a unilateral decision. I get that argument. But this argument that it's undemocratic makes no sense. Said differently: If he were convicted of insurrection, should he still be able to run? The answer has to be "no," right? And that would be just as undemocratic as this. The only difference is the level of proof required.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 23, 2023 10:04:53 GMT -5
I agree with the team being blind to finding open teammates, this was a team failure(coaches included) not solely or primarily on Epps in my opinion. What is our offense? We have no post-up players. We don’t try to run or get any fast break or easy points. We hardly ever set high ball screens. Our players don’t know how to properly run a pick and roll. Our offense seems to consist of having our PG dribble for 30 seconds or run a three man weave, both of which end up with a guard having the ball at the the point line with 5 seconds left trying to create his own shot. What’s next? A return to the JT3 reverse spin dribble 35 feet out from the basket? We run high ball screens constantly. Epps frequently refuses the screen, or teams wisely jump it or hedge very hard because our ball handling is poor. I don't disagree that the action isn't successful for us but it's more an issue of skill (not being able to efficiently attack off the dribble after the screen) than it is one of scheme. The point of the weave is to force off ball defenders to constantly move from a help position, to a denial position to on the ball. It's the same principle as passing quickly around the perimeter against a zone as a means to try to open up the interior. It's not an action designed directly to get a basket but as a way to create space. Tons of teams at all levels do it. We have no post play, true enough. That's why we run the constant cross screens down low. Because getting the ball to a post player any higher than point blank is useless. I would like to see more off ball action for threes for our shooters. The problem is that when we get flare or stagger actions, most teams either straight switch or show hard. And then screeners aren't good enough to take advantage of the resulting temporary mismatch. I'd also note that the guys you would run those plays for aren't particularly quick off the ball. Bottom line: Just like there isn't a lot you can scheme on defense to solve the fundamental problem of a primary defender not being able to keep his man in front (necessitating help), there isn't a lot you can scheme on offense when guys can't ever beat their man off the dribble or with a cut.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 11, 2023 21:30:14 GMT -5
At the end of the day don't we have the impeachment process to calibrate all of this? And didn't the impeachment process run, without a conviction, so there is really no point of the whole exercise we are watching? or the whole exercise is double prosecution or even subsequent election interference? What you say makes a whole lot more sense than bifarcating things by political/non-political as the DC judge did. Yeah, the standard is not whether an act is 'political' or not - a nearly impossible thing to define, pretty much *everything* can be framed as political, especially when you're the President - but whether it is 'official' or not. The ruling uses "political" in the common understanding to refer to *electoral* politics, since purely electoral activities cannot be official acts. As for impeachment, Article I, Section III of the Constitution explicitly states that the impeachment process is separate from and in addition to criminal liability: They likely felt the need to be explicit about this because in Great Britain, Parliament actually did have the power to levy criminal sanctions. Trump is trying to argue that the wording of the Constitution says "the Party convicted" and therefore he is not "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law," but that is a specious and meritless argument - if it's not double jeopardy to be convicted by the Senate and then tried again and convicted by a Court of Law, it certainly cannot be double jeopardy to have been acquitted by the Senate and then tried by a court. Heck, it's not double jeopardy to be tried by a state and the feds separately. Let's also not forget that the precise reason many gave for not voting to convict was because it should be handled (if at all) criminally and not politically (since Trump was no longer in office). There's no perfect answer to the "my political opponent is bringing the case" issue. It can't be, though, that we just let alleged criminal conduct slide, particularly when the allegations go to the very heart of our political system. We have tried various mechanisms to insulate DOJ from the political process and double insulate special prosecutors from the political process (independent of the independent DOJ). But I get there will always be the taint of bias.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 9, 2023 12:03:48 GMT -5
So, uh, what is your solution to climate change pray tell? Just ignore it until "Karen" in your example has to outright move from her home due to hurricanes? I don't mean what works politically. How would you, personally, suggest solving it? Or do you happen to think there is no problem at all? And if that is the case, is there anything at all that could convince you there is one? As for your 80% number....well...Ill just say this as respectfully as I can....that's incredibly stupid and inaccurate. Real median wages (that is, inflation adjusted) are UP for the first time in nearly 20 years over the last year or so. And with nearly record unemployment. To the extent houses and cars were out of reach for people, that has been the case for 20 years and only now is that slightly easing. If anything, tax policy has squeezed the upper middle class in the past 8-10 years. SSI is a huge problem. No argument here Please read Alex Epstein's Fossil Future and then understand what a realistic approach to the climate future is. He works through the propaganda from both the left and right. The analysis is all there on each type of energy and issues such as transport and the relative speed of adoption of technologies. I won't paraphrase his arguments since he does it so much better. But until anyone concerned with climate has read this book, they really don't understand the true nature of the climate issue. If you are part of a book group this is an excellent choice-I have a friend who used it with her book club and converted 3 of 6 members to the sane side of the climate issue. As to your other point, my experience from a very broad group of friends, acquaintances, business colleagues etc. belies the statistics you quote and that we all see in the Wall Street Journal. Young people are really hurting today and a lot of them are living with and driving their parents crazy. I've read it. I just don't find it convincing. To me, the fact that fossil fuel production and burning has increased consistently over 200 years and so has warming leads me to conclude that additional production isnt likely to solve the problem. As for young people, I know plenty doing quite well. Of course, my own acquaintance group's experience doesn't override the objective evidence.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 9, 2023 10:59:21 GMT -5
The most important thing that came out from Trump's latest interview is his approach to fixing social security through using proceeds from a tax (paid almost exclusively by foreigners) on vastly augmented US oil exports to end the funding shortages to Social Security and Medicare. This is huge since the Democrat playbook is always using the "Republicans are going to gut your social security and make you work to 70 (or 85) line" to kill Republicans. If Trump is keeping or maybe even lowering the retirement age, the Democrats will have to pivot in any discussion on entitlement reform to a discussion the Republicans would love to have on climate change (with Trump all in for fracking, use of federal lands for oil, opening up and building pipelines, sensible refinery regulations and new construction,removing EV mandates etc.). One can even see a campaign theme developing. In the Biden America where 80% (I think the percentage is accurate as it now applies to the children of all my friends/acquaintances who are not off to law/med or top 10 MBA schools or in heavy duty computer engineering) of under 35s have no hope of ever owning a new car or a house, the MAGA message becomes the "birght, abundant, clean fossil future" versus the "dismal and ever more austere Dark Green Age" of the Democrats. They can even put up ads showing future landfills of old EV batteries and pictures of the ugly cement and asphalt factories that will be needed from heavier weghted EVs tearing up our roads in the dark green future. Or how about an ad where a family in North Carolina or Georgia is informed that a hurricane is coming through and evacuation is needed. The power goes out. Dad says "crap I forgot to charge up the Tesla (which has a Biden-Harris sticker). His neighbor with a Red Maga hat knocks on the door and says "Even though we've had our differences, I was thinking of you and Karen-come along in my old F-150 and let's go to safety". Everyone drives away in the Big F-150 with a Trump sticker on the back with a concluding caption" America comes together". (Not likely to happen because of the neighborhood segregation in America today but it could be possible). So, uh, what is your solution to climate change pray tell? Just ignore it until "Karen" in your example has to outright move from her home due to hurricanes? I don't mean what works politically. How would you, personally, suggest solving it? Or do you happen to think there is no problem at all? And if that is the case, is there anything at all that could convince you there is one? As for your 80% number....well...Ill just say this as respectfully as I can....that's incredibly stupid and inaccurate. Real median wages (that is, inflation adjusted) are UP for the first time in nearly 20 years over the last year or so. And with nearly record unemployment. To the extent houses and cars were out of reach for people, that has been the case for 20 years and only now is that slightly easing. If anything, tax policy has squeezed the upper middle class in the past 8-10 years. SSI is a huge problem. No argument here
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 3, 2023 10:03:52 GMT -5
This makes the most sense. How did refs not consider this? Bizarre. Yes they check the “when” as to a call made on the court (out of bounds, shot beating the clock, time of a foul, etc). In this case there is no call on the floor to reconcile the clock to. They can’t say we messed him going out of bounds just like they can’t review to say a foul they didn’t call happened with 0.7 left. It’s annoying, but totally understandable why the rules are what they are. Otherwise everything becomes reviewable. It just is magnified when there’s clear evidence like stepping on a line as opposed to a foul that is more open to interpretation. So if you want to argue anything, allowing out of bounds calls could be amended, but you risk slowing down the game a ton. There's always going to be a line drawing problem. I get that. But it seems to me that reviewing any "objective" call in the last minute is where you draw it. I would also note that once you are reasonably reviewing it (say, for time) anyway, there's simply no harm in making a call if you spot something obviously wrong during the process. Again, not a judgment call (even if wrong), but something wholly objective.
|
|