hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 24, 2006 15:18:39 GMT -5
And that's a good argument for him to be the 3rd guard, but not to hop over Sapp and start.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 24, 2006 15:02:55 GMT -5
I think you are grossly overestimating Tyler's ability to shoot. I'm also not sure how important him being strong is, since Sapp is just as good a rebounder and solid enough for a SG himself. He is also quicker laterally on defense than Tyler, making up for any problems his strength might cause.
I also don't see the relevance of his 2 years in the system, since his experience advantage last year got him nothing, and the returns on year 2 can't be greater than what Sapp learned in year 1.
I would be shocked if Tyler started. I'd offer 9-1 if i was a bookie.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 24, 2006 14:41:23 GMT -5
I really don't understand why people think Crawford has a chance to start. Consider:
1 - Last year as a freshman Sapp played a major role, while Crawford played none despite a year in the system.
2 - Jumps between freshman and sophomore year are usually bigger than between sophomore and junior year.
3 - Sapp is playing with Hibbert on Clyde's - he replaced Cook in that role.
4 - In my opinion, he has looked a lot better overall than Tyler this summer.
I just can't figure out why people think Tyler is going to make what would be a huge leap over Sapp. Last year he never played; why is he suddenly above a freshman that play a lot last year? A shout out by coach to a guy we already knew was a hard worker isn't near enough evidence.
I would generally agree with SFHoya's minute projections, except that I have no idea who will be getting the minutes he gave to Egerson.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 23, 2006 21:58:28 GMT -5
I wasn't comparing Sapp and Crawford when I said Tyler wasn't a good fit - I don't think Sapp is an ideal fit for this team at SG either. I just like him there more than Tyler. I still feel like he has a SFs game in a SGs body, and the last thing we need is another forward.
We'll see. Like I said, I don't think he has any chance of starting. But he might very well be the favorite as the 3rd guard.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 23, 2006 21:49:48 GMT -5
My worry is that if we have, say, Crawford at the 2 and Ewing at the 3 that teams will press the hell out of us, and we won't respond well. I like Tyler but I don't think he really fits well on this roster. We need ball handling, shooting and scoring from the 2 more than we need rebouding and hustle.
I really don't see any possible way that Spann or Crawford start. I also don't see how Spann gets any minutes, unless Macklin or Summers don't. We aren't going to consistently play 3 frontcourt subs.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 23, 2006 18:20:26 GMT -5
I chose Michael Bolton. I think Ewing will start, but I really have no idea about the 3rd guard spot.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 23, 2006 17:34:05 GMT -5
I don't have much to add recap wise. Tombs continue to inexplicably suck. Clyde's humiliated M and A, and Tombs should have also.
Reasons why Tombs stink:
1 - They don't box out.
2 - They don't play defense, except going for blocks.
3 - They can't shoot 3s, and Rivers' game doesn't translate well to summer league play, since there is no offense being run and he can't shoot.
4 - Too many TOs, largely a factor of big men handling the ball a lot.
5 - The bench is a joke. No mercenaries like Tomb's usually has.
6 - Terrible FT shooting.
7 - No Coach Rodney to scream a lot.
8 - Scott Tenorman from Washington and Lee still hasn't overcome eating his murdered parents.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 22, 2006 19:00:11 GMT -5
Of all the days to go to the KL this summer I went today. It wasn't as bad to me as hoyaboy suggests but it was pretty disappointing. I concur that the third game involving Ewing and Crawford and Thornton was unwatchable for the most part and almost had me dozing off. More later. Since it was your first day, it probably still had the newness appeal. I've been to tons of games already, and just couldn't handle it today. RDF - the main reason the 2nd game was so boring is that it was simply really sloppy, and nobody scored. It was 23-23 at the half. That just ain't exciting.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 22, 2006 18:11:44 GMT -5
This is sad, but the fighting after that dunk woke me up from a brief nap, so I didn't actually see the dunk. I feel like an 80 old man.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 22, 2006 18:01:37 GMT -5
Painful 4+ hours in the gym for me today. First game Clyde's beat a nobody team of Bethesda Magic in a fairly sloppy game. Roy only had about 12, and struggled a bit against the short and stout Willie Shaw. Did dominate on D though. Overall, fairly boring game.
Next game was CUTS with Ewing against Electro-Lite with Thornton and Crawford. I can't even really comment on this - it was extremely low scoring and boring until the last minute, and I actually managed to fall asleep a few times in the 2nd half despite the bleachers being the 2nd least comfortable things I have ever sat in (1st being the Multi-Sport facility seats, which were designed for pre-schoolers). Electro won.
Finally, what is for some reason the worst Tomb's team ever lost to the Bulldogs (Bowie State, I think) by 1 to fall to 2-4. Some Bulldog made a 25 foot three with 10 seconds left, and Jeff missed a J as time ran out. Jeff was OK, as was Summers, but it was an ugly, ugly game. Tons of TOs, and somehow the Tombs managed to get DESTROYED on the boards. And Macklin has rocks for hands. Only highlight was a nasty put back dunk by Rivers.
Hopefully things are more exciting tomorrow.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 22, 2006 12:56:35 GMT -5
That's so horribly vague that it's hard to answer. I dont think anyone has ever made the argument that we need to "replace" our 3 point shooting - assuming by replace you mean all of it. But based on Sapp and Ewing's history, I'm worried that we might barely replace any.
We can obviously still be an "effective offense," depending of course on your definition. Without major improvements in shooting from Sapp, Ewing, and say Crawford (if he were to win the 3rd guard spot), I don't see how our offensive will be as efficient as it was last year. If we took as many 3s as we did last year, we likely wouldn't be playing in anything close to the ideal manner. But if Ewing and Sapp combine for 60 3PA, the same is true. They need to find a happy medium; I'm just not yet confident we have the shooting to get there.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 22, 2006 12:28:40 GMT -5
I made one mistake, with Thornton - I thought he had committed earlier, for some reason. Most of the rest of your post disagrees with me without really making sense.
I said Spann, Sapp, and Egerson were "short notice." What that meant is that JTIII hadn't had full time to recruit that class, and I'm sure would have rather had guys that had similar abilities but were also better shooters (ie Freeman, Wright) if he had more time to build relationships. When you look at who he targeted in the classes he had more time to work with, it has been almost exclusively guys that are higher ranked and more talented. So I don't think it is at all absurd to think that the 2005 class wasn't want JTIII would have ideally gone after.
Your "argument" with regards to me saying that I'm concerned about our ability to penetrate since "it hasn't happened yet" is comical. I say I'm not sure it will happen, since I havent seen proof yet - and your retort is that we "should wait a bit." Well, uh, that's what I said. Thanks for an unecessary paragraph though.
Your strawman about it being better for Owens to drive more isn't at all relevant to anything I said.
As for Bawinkel, you said he didn't come because he thought we were more inetrested in Crews. Maybe. Other people say we wanted him and lost out. Maybe. There also wasn't really a scholarship. Either way, all I ever said that was JTIII recruited him. Again, thanks for an unecessary paragraph in which you try to dispute what I've said without actaully doing so.
The idea that we don't need or look for shooting is simply absurd, even moreso than MCIs constant desire to find arguments where there aren't any.
GIGA - yea, I agree. I specifically said a number of times that I expect our team to be better overall, if not quite as good offensively. Like MCI, however, you are confusing me saying that Cook and Owens helped the offense with saying that they were perfect. That is called a strawman argument. I say Owens was an efficient offensive player; you say it would be better if he could drive too. I say Cook was an efficient offensive player; you say Sapp doesn't have to play exactly like him. I say Freeman is a very good 3 point shooter; you say he is good all-around, not just a 3 point specialist. None of that is responsive to what I have said; you are responding to arguments I'm not making.
I don't want Sapp to try to play like Cook; he'd suck if he did, But I want him to be able to hit threes if someone sags off and he is wide open. If he can't it hurts the offense. Not much to it.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 22, 2006 9:38:55 GMT -5
You've got who recruited who mixed up - Thornton was actually an Esh recruit, although to some extent JTIII had to decide to keep him. It's also probably wrong to assume that Spann, Egerson and Sapp were his real target recruits; it was just the best he could get on short notice. But JTIII also tried to recruit Bawinkel (a shooter), has gotten Freeman (one of the best 3 point shooters in his class), and is going hard after Wright (another big time shooter).
I'm also confused as to why Wallace is a "heady PG" rather than a shooter; he could really be listed as either. I'm also wary of your description that we have so many guys who are good at getting to the basket, since it hasn't happened.
Like any coach, I'm sure JTIII would like a balanced team, with penetration, outside shooting, and post-up play. Right now we are very strong at the third, but questionable at the first and second. The college three is ridiculously close; I'd like to see it moved back. But until it is, a coach is a fool not to try to utilize it. Claiming that our loss of 3 point shooting from Owens and Cook won't hurt is pure ignorance, and that's what you seem to do doing.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 22, 2006 9:12:24 GMT -5
Sapp has been draining pretty much all his threes in warmups at Kenner, and has looked better in games. Pat's three point shot has been very shaky so far in Kenner, to be kind. I'm hoping Thornton would win the third guard spot, but I doubt he will.
Basically, Cook and Owens were extremely efficient offensive players, shooting good percentages from 2 (68% for Owens!), 3 (44% for Cook), and the line (85% for Owens). Bowman shouldn't be too much of a loss - I'm not that confident in Pat, but either way there shouldn't be that much of a drop off there.
Of course we COULD get away with not replacing any three point shooting. But that only works with massive jumps in other guys shooting percentages from 2 (and Cook and Owens were good there too), despite the fact that defenses will be sagging more.
Last year we had the 11th most efficient offense in the country. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see that drop. However, I expect our defense and rebounding to make big jumps, so I still expect an improved team.
Discussion-wise though, this is certainly played out. I agree with SF that perhaps more interesting now is who wins the third guard spot (I have no idea) and how minutes break down at the 3.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 17, 2006 21:30:19 GMT -5
Ok, fine, the shout-outs make up for not using my thread.
Good recap, as always.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 17, 2006 21:03:28 GMT -5
Too good for my thread, eh?
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 16, 2006 20:54:29 GMT -5
Good point on the crowd - it was huge. The belachers were almost filled. I suck at estimating crowds, but I'd guess 500+ easy.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 16, 2006 19:02:22 GMT -5
Clyde's won 102-87. They were up by double digits for much of the game.
Roy had about 25 points, double digit board, and 5 or 6 assists. He struggled from the line though, going about 4/9. Sapp had his best game so far IMO, hitting 2 threes and scoring on some nice drives
Jeff had a very good game. I lost track of his points, but wouldn't be surprised to hear he had 30+. No threes, but he was scoring on drives, hooks, fade-away banks, and all sorts of other shots. However, his handle was sloppy at times and he had 5-6 TOs, which was the killer for Tombs. Summers also had a sloppy handle, and Macklin struggled to hold on to passes and loose balls. All in all Tombs probably had 10 more TOs than Clyde's, if not more. Clyde's was also very hot from 3.
Wallace had a very good game, but none of the freshman played that well, and the coach often went small. I guess of the group Summers was the best. I gotta run, but figured I'd post this quick recap. I'm sure someone else will have better, and if not I'll post more detail later.
Oh yea, one more quick hit - I caught the last 10 minutes of the prior game, with Thornton and Crawford. Their team lost, and while I was there Josh missed three questionable treys and Crawford hit one.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 16, 2006 19:58:36 GMT -5
Great reading! Keep fighting over who should take threes...who cares as long as they go in! Usually arguments are too cordial on the board, so figured I'd spice things up a bit!
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 16, 2006 18:54:19 GMT -5
Really though, the three point line is so close that it is probably wrong most of the time to pass it up for a 15 footer - you won't score as many points that way on the average if you are any kind of shooter.
You argument that last years offensive efficiency was a mirage makes no sense - it's a fact, based on how many points we scored per possesion. Regardless of how we did it or how long it took, it happened. I know GIGA is usually too much of a homer to analyze things objectively, but I figured MCI would agree that the offense will take a hit unless we get some solid 3 point shooting out of the Sapp/Ewing/Summers/3rd guard group.
If the opposing SG and SF are constantly sagging, not only will it hurt Jeff and Roy, but it will make it harder for Sapp and Ewing to drive or get backdoor cuts. Being a good 3 point shooter makes it easier to drive to the hole or get an open midrange jumper. That doesn't mean we need to replace all the 3 point shooting we lost, but we need more than Wallace and Jeff.
|
|