bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 10, 2012 0:59:58 GMT -5
Pretty amazing that Georgetown attempted only 2 threes in the 2nd half and 0 in the 1st overtime.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 10, 2012 0:15:05 GMT -5
Defense and rebounding are not similar.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 10, 2012 0:09:02 GMT -5
Your criticism of free throw coaching was wrong. When guys are good shooters, but are in a slump, you don't hound them about their misses and make them tighten up even more. You show confidence in them so they can loosen up and have a natural, fluid motion.
Nate is just a bad shooter period, but the rest of the guys are good shooters who seem to get the yips. There is nothing wrong with Hollis' form or Jason's or Markel's, but free throw shooting is like putting or throwing a curve ball or hitting one or a dozen other things in sports where the more you think about the mechanics the less natural it feels. JTIII has been helping Hollis by showing confidence in him by having him shoot the technicals.
They just need to keep shooting them in practice and stay loose.
That Kendall Marshall story is bullEdited. Roy Williams may think his words are free-throw magic, but one 5 for 6 game with no pressure shots is not evidence that Marshall is a better free throw shooter. UNC made only 16 of 26 today so Roy must have stopped coaching free throw shooting since the Duke game.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 8, 2012 22:36:32 GMT -5
You are wrong.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 8, 2012 22:33:51 GMT -5
Maybe the Head Coach needs to start watching these guys shoot and quit talking about supersticions and hocus pocus. If Roy Williams can get on Kendall Marshall for fading on his FT--I'd like to think III can with Hollis Thompson--who has a better stroke but does same thing. Looking into the crowd isn't as effective as saying "Stay on the FT line Hollis". But that's just me--I think you can learn a lot watching guys shoot it--even if they miss and help break down what they are doing wrong--(for instance, I'd make Lubick shoot granny style if he continues whatever it is that he calls his form). Shooting form is like a batting stance. Doesn't need to be a cookie cutter as long as you are successful but if you suck--then you need to make alterations to routine. The sloppy/unforced turnovers will never change until the coach makes that a point of emphasis in terms of improving the program. Show me a team that turns the ball over a lot, and doesn't get points off turnovers and I'll show teams who will never win in postseason against quality opponents and often get upset by lesser opponents. Sound familiar? I seem to remember North Carolina blowing big leads several times in big games, to Duke this year and to Georgetown with the Final Four on the line. And every other big time team and big time coach has had games that got away. Has your hero Roy Williams ever taken a freshman like Henry Sims and turned him into a senior like Henry Sims? You are such a pompous blowhard.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 8, 2012 17:53:06 GMT -5
He mostly needs to be stronger with the ball. He doesn't play through contact.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 8, 2012 1:03:12 GMT -5
Neither Jason nor Hollis seem to care how many points they have, so why should fans make a big deal out of Hollis not shooting much in an easy double-digit win?
Once we built a lead and established that Pitt could not stop Henry and Otto inside, Hollis and Jason ran the offense, played defense, and played team basketball under composure. The only three Hollis attempted in the 2nd half was when the ball was passed to him with 2 seconds on the shot clock. He drove a couple of times and had a questionable charge called on one and had a layup fall off the rim on another. He played good defense and probably could have done more on offense if it was needed.
The whole team played with great composure in the 2nd half and kept going to what was working the way that good teams should. The team only attempted 5 threes in the 2nd half and 3 of those were by Whittington.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 7, 2012 23:25:19 GMT -5
Last time, Georgetown had a 6 point lead with 5:30 to go, then committed 5 turnovers and made only 3 of 7 free throws, including a missed front-end, down the stretch. If I remember correctly, it seemed that no one wanted to take the big shots.
It was still tied with 1:30 to go. Cincy made two free throws after a foul on a drive. Otto missed a shot but Hollis got the rebound. After time out the ball went to Otto on the baseline and he fumbled it out of bounds. Hoyas had to foul and Cincy made free throws to close it out.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 6, 2012 14:21:53 GMT -5
This year's team is much less dependent on threes than last year's team.
Hollis shoots such a high percentage because he doesn't take bad shots. If he forces more shots, it is unlikely that he will make 46% of them. He is deadliest when the ball goes in to Henry and then out to Hollis with his feet set.
We need Henry to get good position. We need Otto to find openings at the elbow, foul line, baseline. If we get the ball in there we get high percentage twos and kickouts to open threes. Those are the threes we make.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 6, 2012 13:24:48 GMT -5
WSJ OpEd today, written by another GU Law Grad: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577263281305035966.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopShe claims that: Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.That sound true? To me that seems like an important bit of information. Fluke addressed that in her testimony. She cited a woman who was denied coverage even though the contraceptive prescription was for ovarian cysts and the student did not need it for birth control. The student ended up needing surgery. All of that is beside the point. The Church is not paying for anything here. The university, law school, medical school, hospital, etc. are not churches. Employees pay for their health insurance as I explained above. The costs of student insurance are passed on through tuition as with other services. It isn't the Church's money.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 6, 2012 13:14:56 GMT -5
What is the original source for the blog claim that she "enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control?"
I do not doubt that she enrolled at GULC to study First Amendment law for the perfectly legitimate career of public interest advocate for various liberal causes. It seems ridiculous to infer that her primary criterion for choosing a law school was to challenge the school's insurance plan.
Besides, it is Rush Limbaugh who has made her a famous liberal activist with a national following. Before Rush, she was just a law student activist that Congressional Republicans were afraid to allow to participate in a hearing no one would have watched.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 6, 2012 0:49:14 GMT -5
Not exactly: virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html"When it made its decision in August 2011 on women’s preventive services, HHS also put forward an exemption to the required coverage of contraception for health plans provided by “religious employers”. That key term is defined as an organization that has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose, primarily employs and serves people who share its religious tenets, and is a nonprofit organization under sections of U.S. law that refer to “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches” and to “the exclusively religious activities of any religious order”. The language mirrors the religious exemptions to contraceptive coverage laws established, and upheld by courts, in California and New York"
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 6, 2012 0:01:54 GMT -5
The line is not whether the institution receives federal funds but whether its activities could receive federal funds without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I think that if an institution says it is eligible for federal support because it serves the secular purposes of federal programs, then it shouldn't be easy to invoke a religious exemption as an employer in those programs.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 5, 2012 23:31:30 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for pregnancy and birth, and when it is used for preventive medical reasons it is cheaper than the complications it is preventing.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 5, 2012 23:21:34 GMT -5
Churches are exempt and do not have to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees. The university, law school, medical school, and hospital are not churches. If they were they would not be eligible for all the federal taxpayer subsidies that they receive - taxes that come from people of other religions and no religion who cannot be forced to subsidize a church.
Again, employers do not pay for contraceptives or any health care provided by insurance. The only reason we have employer-provided health insurance is because it is not taxed when it is financed that way. The economic effect is that employees agree to reduce their pay by X dollars in exchange for their employer paying X dollars in health insurance premiums for them. So the X dollars are not taxable income for the employee, neither the employer nor the employee pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on the X dollars, and the employer counts the X dollars as a tax deductible business expense. This is the employer having an incentive to set up a system for the employee to pay for his/her health care tax-free. It is still the employees and his/her dependents paying for their health care.
The cartoonish analogy up there about the weapons is off the mark. In the real world, there is no universal demand for assault weapons as there is for health care, and there are no federal tax subsidies that give employers an incentive to set up a system for their employees to reduce their pay in exchange for a tax-free mechanism to purchase assault weapons. And in pretty much every other way, we do not live in that right-wing comic book fantasy world where people need an AK47 in anything equivalent to the way people need cancer treatment or other medical care.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 5, 2012 22:35:40 GMT -5
Also, physicians at the Catholic hospital prescribe birth control: www.georgetownuniversityhospital.org/body_dept.cfm?id=557232"Sexuality-related care includes discussion of relationships, counseling regarding birth control and sexually transmitted diseases, prescribing birth control, and screening for and treating gynecologic, including sexually transmitted, infections."
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 5, 2012 21:42:20 GMT -5
Shows the significant improvement in defense and rebounding. Somewhat surprising that Georgetown shoots fewer threes than 3/4 of the Big East.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 5, 2012 18:08:44 GMT -5
Big East Regluar Season Conference-Only Stats 2012: www.bigeast.org/portals/5/fls/19400/stats/mbasketball/2011-2012/CONFONLY.HTM2011: www.bigeast.org/fls/19400/stats/mbasketball/2010-2011/CONFONLY.HTMScoring margin 64.5 - 59.8 +4.7 (3rd in BE) Last season 64.9 - 65.2 -0.3 (11th) Field goal pct. .444 (3rd) Last season .445 (5th) Defense field goal pct. .388 (3rd) Last season .415 (5th) 3-pt field goal pct. .337 (4th) Last season .324 (11th) Defense 3-pt fg pct. .281 (3rd) Last season .318 (6th) 3-pt attempts 273 15.2 pg (13th) Last season 346 19.2 (4th) Rebounding margin 35.6 - 30.8 +4.7 (2nd) Last season 32.9 - 32.9 -0.1 (10th) Turnover margin 13.2 - 11.9 -1.22 (11th) Last season 12.8 - 10.2 -2.56 (15th) Defensive rebound pct. .693 (1st) Last season .646 (10th) Offensive rebound pct. .360 (5th) Last season .334 (10th)
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 5, 2012 15:36:43 GMT -5
Why don't Republicans explain workplace economics to Rush and his followers? As RusskyHoya explained last week, health insurance is not a gift or a subsidy from the employer or from the taxpayers. For employees it is part of their compensation. We have a tax system and a health care system that make it cheaper for everyone if employers sponsor health insurance plans for their employees in lieu of paying them more salary and having workers buy their own individual policies. Any organization that hires professionals or skilled workers has had to offer insurance in order to compete in the labor market. It doesn't give the employers the authority to dictate their employees' medical options. So Georgetown's health insurance options cover oral contraceptives for employees.
Businesses that hire mostly unskilled workers haven't had to offer insurance and have freeloaded off the other employers and the taxpayers to pay extra for emergency room care or public assistance. The free rider problem has added about 20% to employer health plans as hospitals, doctors, and other providers shift the costs of the nonpayers to the payers.
Many universities have had to offer health insurance coverage for students because many students aged out of eligibility for coverage on their parents' employer-sponsored health plan and could not get or afford individual health plans if they had any preexisting conditions or risks. To the extent that part of the premiums are paid by the university, those costs are passed on to students through tuition as are the costs of other services. The money is not coming from the Church or from taxpayers.
Rush apparently also thinks oral contraceptives are similar to his Viagra, the more sex one has the more pills one has to take. It is hard to believe that anyone could be so ignorant and also be so ignorant of his own ignorance that he would not shut the Edited up.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 4, 2012 16:40:52 GMT -5
Areas III Has Struggled/Needs To Improve: 1. Tried to play Small Ball without athletic group and made the smaller team play halfcourt. How did that work? No coach at any level has a small team and makes them play possession ball against set defense. Your advantage is to get looks in transition and you either recruit to get faster/more athletic or you get bigger. He didn't do either. THIS! Probably my main pet peeve the last couple of years. We played small ball because we had Wright, Freeman, Clark, and Hollis. They are small but they were the best players on the team because Monroe left, Henry did not develop, Vaughn was limited, and despite all the bull on this board JTIII recruited some great guards and wings. Put those four on a team with a legit center and legit power forward and that would have been a great team. Thompson tried Nate at the four but it didn't solve the problem. He actually did well with a team that had to out score every opponent, until Wright was injured.
|
|