|
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.
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 18, 2024 11:05:14 GMT -5
What % chance do we have of landing Omoruyi? What other options are there for a big man if he decides to go elsewhere? Do we realistcally know how many teams from his list of 12 are actually realistic options? People are saying he's going to visit Georgetown and Alabama. Any buzz about other visits? Good big men are always going to command the highest NIL on average because there are so many fewer available than guards/forwards who do not need as much height. If NIL matters to Omoruyi and we have a bunch left we can use, I would hope we could compete for him. Alabama's biggest advantage, I think, is that they are coming of a really good season, and Oates is obviously a very well respected coach. But, from what I can gather, Omoruyi went to high school in northern New Jersey and now has been at Rutgers. Tuscaloosa is a very different place than the northeast, and basketball will always be second fiddle there to football. That's a battle I would hope we could win with an NIL advantage. The big factor in favor of Alabama is that if Omoruyi wants a sure-fire NCAA team, and he looks at historical performance, the odds may be better there. But, if Omoruyi comes to Georgetown, it would go a very long way to making us competitive for one of those at large slots. I still think it's a reach after last season, but if Omoruyi comes, and things fall into place with a few of the other guys, then it could happen. And if it's in any way a package deal where recruiting Seydou Traore helps you get Omoruyi, you absolutely 100% take him too.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Transfers
Apr 17, 2024 19:20:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 17, 2024 19:20:59 GMT -5
Manhattan is one of the worst teams in an already horrible conference. Traore's offensive numbers aren't terribly impressive, either. I assume the angle here is defense? He was an excellent defensive rebounder (in MEAC), and got a bunch of blocks and steals (in MEAC). If so, that might make sense, but does it even translate to the Big East? It's just a big leap to go from MEAC to the Big East, especially for a player whose offense wasn't that good even at the MEAC level. But I haven't seen him play and looking at stats on a page. Any more insights? Good defensive instincts; Great rebounder; Belonged on the court vs. UConn; can get to the basket and create his own shot anywhere on the floor; frequently dribbled the ball up court and set the offense; athletic. I like his game a lot. he's different in some ways than anyone they have. and he's humbly confident. Thanks for the intel. And yes I meant MAAC not MEAC.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 17, 2024 16:25:12 GMT -5
Manhattan is one of the worst teams in an already horrible conference. Traore's offensive numbers aren't terribly impressive, either. I assume the angle here is defense? He was an excellent defensive rebounder (in MAAC), and got a bunch of blocks and steals (in MAAC).
If so, that might make sense, but does it even translate to the Big East? It's just a big leap to go from MAAC to the Big East, especially for a player whose offense wasn't that good even at the MAAC level.
But I haven't seen him play and looking at stats on a page. Any more insights?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 17, 2024 15:53:30 GMT -5
I get that. Answer this PR, was Cook overmatched physically on defense or was it the fact he couldn't recognize when to switch and/or help on defense? Our defense, including Cook, was overmatched the whole season. It was the worst defense I've seen from a GU team in my "decades of experience". That said, we were understaffed and we don't know if Cook was under instructions not to foul out. Until I hear (or read from) Cooley say otherwise, we don't need to discuss it because it would all be assumptions. Is Cook capable of reaching enforcer mode? Who knows. Would Cook play better defense with better defenders around him? Who knows. That said, Cooley shouldn't take the risk. He should get a proven rim protector to stop the lay-up line. I agree with this. I'll just say that after having attended a few games in person and watching Cook more, I think it has to be one of two things: (1) Cooley told Cook not to help or (2) Cook was supposed to help but simply is so slow to react that he didn't, leading to the worst rim defense in Division 1. After seeing him play in person and seeing more nuance than you see on TV, my sense is that Cook just isn't good at help defense and has slow defensive instincts. That's not only his play, but there are some instances where he tried to help and failed to do it. And Fielder usually helped much better when he was playing the 5. Cooley also looked exasperated many times when Cook stood there and the other team got an easy basket. So, I think it's unlikely he was told not to help. But that's my speculation.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 17, 2024 15:32:41 GMT -5
The more good players the better. If talented players leave because they aren't getting enough PT, thats a good problem to have. We need to have a rim protector at C. Sorber, Fielder, Cook, Mutombo (?) can fight over the remining minutes (along with probably some small ball 4...or Williams/McKenna, etc). 3 slots. Rim protector is a must. A shooter would be ideal but could also use a versatile 3/4. Backup PG. Lets go. Cook wasn't a good defender. He had less to do with his size than it does technique, IQ, etc. While I would like to retain Cook, if we could get a good big to supplement our roster, and Cook decides to leave, that is a still a net plus for us given how bad Cook is on defense.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 17, 2024 13:29:56 GMT -5
Amen. Would Cook play differently if we have other centers and he can foul at will? TBD. He would have to learn to understand help side defense enough to be in a position to foul. I am just skeptical that after 4 years of playing college basketball that Cook will learn better defense. He frequently is not even in the same vicinity as the offensive player with the ball, and his help defense is almost non-existent. I really don't think this is an ability probably as much of an instinctual/ball IQ problem. Some guys like Otto Porter come in Day 1 and have great court vision and defensive abilities and instincts. Cook does not have any of that. I say this really appreciating and liking what Cook did on offense, too. But even that is limited against the bigger bigs in the Big East. I do think Sorber will get a lot of run this year, but it would be nice to have a portal big with experience who is a strong defender. I just don't see Cook's defense improving enough.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 17, 2024 11:09:04 GMT -5
It Boggles my mind that folks don't want to start Fielder & Sorber next season and by start I mean give them every chance to play 25+ minutes per game. To me the biggest issue is that Cook needs to play less than 10 minutes a game. He's way too much of a liability on defense to play any significant minutes. But yes, I think we need an upgrade at center in the portal of somebody who can log a lot of solid minutes.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 17, 2024 11:04:41 GMT -5
This is a great pickup. Welcome to Malik Mack.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 16, 2024 17:09:15 GMT -5
This is why a $4-$5 million NIL budget doesn't necessarily get you as far as one might imagine.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 16, 2024 15:40:34 GMT -5
2003, you can't have it both ways. You consistently point to Cooley's "success" at Providence as reason to believe he's going to be successful at Georgetown. Yet on the other side of your mouth, you say you can't look to history to evaluate the present because college basketball has changed so much. So which is it? Personally, I think Cooley's most likely going to have a modicum of success at Georgetown, and we'll be a middle of the road Big East team with some years that are slightly better than that. But it looks like he's pursuing a different route to that success than what he used at Providence. At Providence, he built tough teams over time that had players who developed within his system. 2 offseasons into his career at Georgetown, it looks like he's got a revolving door and will have only 2-3 players on next year's roster who have contributed for him previously. Whatever "culture" he's trying to build, he's lost a year already on that front. Actually, I can have it both ways. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are missing the context entirely. The post I was responding to was specifically about building a roster, and whether you can build a team like Marquette or Creighton. EtomicB asked why Cooley cannot do what he did at Providence. Specifically with respect to building a roster, my point is merely that you cannot simply look at how Cooley built a roster at Providence (in 2011-2012) and say he should do that here when one considers that the transfer and NIL rules are hugely different now (and NIL didn't even exist then). I think trying to use an older model (in which players were not able to leave easily) is silly when a new model (where players can leave very easily and get money too) is not going to work, especially for a team that has been as bad as ours. If you read the thread above you will see that. This is entirely different from evaluating a coach's ability. Recruiting has changed. The game itself on the court has not changed much, and so it's easier to take what a coach did 5-10 years ago and use it as an indicator of how that coach will coah now. Did he coach good offense? Did he coach good defense? Did he make the NCAA tournament? Does he have a consistent record of success? Simply because there is a transfer portal does not change that good defense is good defense. The same on offense. Sure, putting a roster in place is crucial, but so are the other elements (which is why I am worried about defense). Generally, a coach's prior success or failure is the best indicator we have of their future results. Will there be coaches who simply do not succeed in the NIL era simply because they cannot get rosters together at all? Probably. I have no evidence that will be Cooley, though. In fact, Cooley used the portal to bring in Hopkins and Carter, both of whom led Providence to the tournament, and very well likely would have again if Hopkins did not get hurt and Cooley stayed there.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 16, 2024 15:25:59 GMT -5
It's not 2011-2012 anymore when few players transferred, and NIL did not exist. Those two factors have drastically changed the ability to retain players. Back in the day players' major reason for not leaving despite some feelings of being unhappy was that they didn't want to sit on the bench a year. Now, not only do they not need to sit, but they can get paid to leave! There are a lot of players and the new "era" blaming going on in this post, It's my opinion that coaching staffs have a big say in many of these transfers as well. It is objective fact that 2011-2012 recruiting was significantly different than it is now. Transfers had to sit. The only transfers who could play immediately were graduates. There was no way to make money off basketball other than going abroad or making the NBA. Now, players do not need to sit--even if they transfer every year. And they can get NIL payments, too. I am not "blaming" anybody. The changes that have happened are not the faults of the players. I do not blame them for transferring, nor do I blame them for getting money they can get from NIL to transfer. Most of us would likely do the same thing in their shoes. But, the reality is that the recruiting landscape is far more tilted toward the players than it was in 2011-2012 when Cooley started at Providence. And coaches' jobs are way harder now in keeping a roster together. Do coaching staffs have a say in some of the transfers? Probably. But, keep in mind in 2011, a coach might have said, "we like you, but you're unlikely to start next year" and a player might have begrudingly stayed wanting to avoid sitting a year and thereby delaying playing professional ball. Now, that player can easily leave, go somewhere else immediately, and get paid to do it. The two situations are wildly different. It is no surprise that the guys who traditionally stayed for 4 years only to play as an upperclassman (after they matured/got better) are becoming rarer and rarer. I am thinking of guys like Aaron Bowen, Jabril Trawick, Henry Sims, Bradley Hayes, Moses Ayegba, etc. Because of the rules, those guys had one option--transfer and sit out, or suck it up, stay, and hope for better playing time later in your career. I am 100% confident that if the current rules existed then, one or many of those guys would not have made it past one or two years at Georgetown.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 16, 2024 13:09:11 GMT -5
We're told the donors like him so what's stopping him from following the path he took at PC? It's not 2011-2012 anymore when few players transferred, and NIL did not exist. Those two factors have drastically changed the ability to retain players. Back in the day players' major reason for not leaving despite some feelings of being unhappy was that they didn't want to sit on the bench a year. Now, not only do they not need to sit, but they can get paid to leave!
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 16, 2024 12:19:20 GMT -5
Speaking of ... any rumors on Big Men? It has been pretty quiet, but I saw this just now. This would be fantastic, but I feel like this is a stretch given the competition, even with a high NIL budget. He would be a great fit though as he only has 1 year of eligibility left, so it would give Sorber time to grow and develop, while giving us a really solid center at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 16, 2024 11:39:04 GMT -5
I'm not comparing rosters, I'm comparing the methodologies used by the coaches in building their rosters. The point is Cooley's methodology cannot be Hurley's or Shaka's right now. If we have success, and the rules haven't changed, I expect Cooley's methodology to be very similar to the other two. Two points: 1. Talking about historical teams, even a few years ago has less value than normal because this is literally the first college basketball year ever where it has been clear from the start that guys can transfer twice without sitting. Even at this time last year, this was up in the air, and not a given. 2. The worst team Hurley had at Connecticut was the first one in the AAC, ranked 98 (KenPom). His worse defensive team was the same year, ranked 129. Marquette may have surprised in 2022-2023, but that year they were ranked 56. The year before Smart took over, Wojo's team was ranked 83, with an 83rd ranked defense. In contrast, this year's Georgetown team was ranked 192, with defense overall ranked 321st. Ewing's last team was ranked 219, with 240 ranked defense. The type of rebuild facing Cooley (and yes, I give him responsibility for the poor season last year, it's not just Ewing) now is significantly different than the one faced by Hurley, Marquette, or anybody else in the Big East. Really, Holtmann at DePaul is the only situation even remotely comparable to our current one. We'll see how that goes.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 16, 2024 9:42:22 GMT -5
In my view, it's better because it deepens the talent pool and it also gives more kids chances to get their degrees. I am not so sure about this. The amount of scholarships available is fixed at 13 per team. If you have 5 years of guys competing for the same scholarships (instead of 4 years of guys), it essentially creates more competition for the same spots. So somewhere, guys are getting squeezed out (likely the lower level guys on the edge of getting scholarships). It does deepen the talent pool though, because some lower level guys just never get to play in college to begin with. Also, by the time a guy has been in school for 4 years, if he doesn't have his degree, the odds of getting it in a 5th year seem low considering that most of these 5th year players are on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th school. I haven't seen stats on it, but I think the number of guys graduating after 4 or 5 years recently has to be lower than it used to be.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 16, 2024 9:36:38 GMT -5
Until the program has some type of success, the coming and going of players will continue. Only to a point. There are other programs that are underperforming and don't see wholesale transfer carnage every year, but the code of silence of college basketball prevents players from ever acknowledging some combination of the following: 1) they didn't like the university, 2) they didn't like the coach, 3) they couldn't hack it academically, 4) they weren't developing as players, 5) they go where the NIL takes them, and/or 6) they don't want to be associated with a losing program. We don't know, and we won't. Since 2020, Georgetown has seen 14 undergraduate players leave after just one year or less. At some levels of the University, this needs a closer look. Putting the Ewing years aside, the amount of transfers so far is in line with our peers at other schools. I am not sure how much there is to examine. It's the changing college landscape, not something systemic at Georgetown (other than our putting a bad team out there). Even a school like Duke, which has had a LOT more success than us in basketball, has had at least three guys hit the portal so far.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 16, 2024 9:33:59 GMT -5
Styles was spotty at best. How many halves would he disappear? Next year, he would have gotten 10-15 minutes per game if he had been lucky. He saw the numbers and the competition. Time to move on. With the caveat that defensive stats are tough because defense involved 5 guys, Styles' defensive numbers weren't great. With Styles playing, our offensive efficiency was 107.4, and our defensive efficiency was 118.1. Obviously, that depends on the guys he is playing with too. Aside from team cohesion and retention, it's not a huge loss.
|
|