DeCourcy: is it the system?

[The Stig]

The other thing that DeCourcy fails to understand is that "the system" doesn't really exist. The Princeton Offense isn't a rigid set of plays that says exactly what certain players have to do. It's more a set of ideas regarding ball movement, teamwork, and moving without the ball. Those basic ideas allow for a lot of breadth style, and JTIII is constantly tweaking it depending on what sorts of players he has.

Both JTIII and Pete Carrill are quick to point out that JTIII's Georgetown offense is very different from the offense Carrill ran at Princeton. The ideas underpinning them are the same and I'm sure experienced viewers would be able to see a lot of similarities, but the offense has evolved a lot under JTIII.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

He also completely ignores the numbers: over the past season and a half, Gtown has been top 5 in offensive efficiency and in the 20s to 30s in defensive efficiency. Gtown's offensive scheme may impact how we play defense, but you can't blame the Princetown for lack of FT shooting, rebounding, and getting beat in the lane. The "system" works. Decourcy's analysis does not.

[Hoya TMF]

While I wholeheartedly disagree with the article, especially given how we looked for the majority of the first half of Memphis, I can understand why he and others remain skeptical.

1. I've complained about this before, but much of the media believes that the UNC game was a fluke win. Their opinion is that we didn't beat UNC so much as they collapsed or choked or beat themselves.
1a. We didn't deserve to play UNC because Jeff travelled in the Vandy game.

2. Outside of UNC, we haven't beaten another "elite" team except Duke in '05. This may be a fair point since, Vanderbilt isn't quite elite competition and Pitt, while highly ranked for most of last year is known to flame out in the tourney. Teams that consistently go to Sweet Sixteens and not farther are not considered "elite." I think DeCoucry's definition of "elite" if not everyone in the National media is a team that will legitmately compete for the title. UNC and Duke are the only ins we have against such teams. Still that's better than most.

That said, it's clear this guy hasn't watched enough of our tape, or maybe he is not critical of the Princeton system, but rather of the pass-first mentality in general. However, our system has not been the cause of our losses in these big games, it's been our star players, and their inability to recognize their need to step up. Jeff took himself out of games last year and we lost them, OSU being the prime example. Roy took himself out of the Memphis game and much the same way, we lost.

I actually can't understand either performance given how Roy and Jeff had dominated games in the past and demonstrated such an awareness of the moment and what was needed to succeed in them.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that? Why did Roy choose to be so passive against Memphis? Is it our "pass-first" mentality? Nerves? A general lack of aggression? That's something we might need to figure out if we get the chance to play another "elite" team in March. There are no other elite teams in the Big East so hopefully we get that opportunity at some point this season. Go Hoyas!

[Boz]

Jan 2, 2008 14:12:02 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

"splenetic" ?

Maybe the coaches should make the system more "splenetic" since "frenetic" would never do.

What? Splenetic is a word. So is splenetical.

We should never run a splenetic system or program. That's Magoo's job. ;D

[saxamaphone]

Splenetic is a perfectly cromulent word.

I don't think it's as heretical as it sounded when I first read it. DeCourcy is one of those people that thinks that because we don't have anyone averaging more than 13 ppg that the offensive system is holding them back. He's partially right–someone like DaJuan or Jeff could put up monster numbers on a run-and-gun team.

It's a philosophical dichotomy. When you need a bucket, do you want your star player taking the shot or do you want the player with the best look taking the shot. Both have their plusses and minuses, he just thinks that the star should take more shots.

I disagree, you disagree, and so do Ken Pomeroy and JT III. When this offense is rolling, it's unstoppable, but you can't see that from reading traditional box scores and watching the 2nd half of the Memphis game. Execution that poor, whether by a star player or an offensive system, will lose that game every time.

He has his opinion, but given our talent, coaching, and track record of improvement across a season, I like our chances.

[DanMcQ]

Jan 3, 2008 9:11:17 GMT -5 Boz said:

What? Splenetic is a word. So is splenetical.

I know - I like it. You don't have to go get all vexatious now.

[kchoya]

My favorite comment from the bottom of the DeCourcy column:

"While we are on the subject of a Princeton offense...the only reason that Geo. Twn plays it is because they saw it done to perfection when Vandy beat them three years ago with it...Now that Vandy personell has changed they have moved away from it."

How many things can we find wrong with that statement.

[FLHoya]

Jan 3, 2008 11:19:24 GMT -5 saxamaphone said:

It's a philosophical dichotomy. When you need a bucket, do you want your star player taking the shot or do you want the player with the best look taking the shot. Both have their plusses and minuses, he just thinks that the star should take more shots.

Here's the thing though--who took the shot that beat Villanova in Philly? Notre Dame in the BET Semis? Vanderbilt in the Sweet 16?

I don't recall the Princeton offense preventing our "star player" from getting the ball in those situations. In fact, two of the three were straight up one-person plays...get Jeff the ball and he's doing something with it. The Vanderbilt play is the exception...the play had an option to go backdoor to Ewing on the baseline early but it wasn't open, so the secondary option was...take a guess.

I just don't think DeCourcy's argument holds up, especially when it's interpreted as "getting your star player(s) the ball" is the criteria for success, since: (1) we spent most of last year doing just that in crunch time situations; (2) the team that's won the last two National Titles didn't exactly have a single star player that always needed the ball.

[Hoya LNU]

Like Doogie, I emailed DeCourcy and got a longer response (below) - give him credit for responding, though I disagree:

---
If you watched the Carolina game, you saw Gtown fall desperately behind UNC and come back with essentially the same sort of scramble attack as any other team needing to rally from a double-digit deficit in the final minutes would use.
The Big East last season had no other teams even remotely in Gtown's class. Only six of 16 members made the NCAAs. The second-place team had entered with losses to mediocre teams such as UMass and Dayton.
I think Georgetown has more talent 1-9 than any team in college basketball.
I don't believe the system is a winner.

MD

----- Original Message ----

Dear Mike,

Curious about your Jan 1 article assertion that, "I've long been
suspicious about whether a Princeton-based scheme can produce national
championship-level teams, and the Hoyas' two most recent experiences
against elite competition didn't erase my doubts."

What about GU beating UNC to get to the final four (and all the tourney
games leading up to that)? Winning the Big East regular season and
tournament?

See you in March.

[Locker]

Glad to see Decourcey responded. He just needs to watch the Carolina game again. There's was no point in that game in which Carolina consistently defended our offense. Even when we were down double digits in the second half, we were shooting > 60% from the field. The problem during the first 35 minutes was our inability to keep Carolina off the offensive glass (sound familiar?).

Also, our extremely poor free throw defense.

[saxamaphone]

Jan 3, 2008 16:45:30 GMT -5 FLHoya said:

Jan 3, 2008 11:19:24 GMT -5 saxamaphone said:

It's a philosophical dichotomy. When you need a bucket, do you want your star player taking the shot or do you want the player with the best look taking the shot. Both have their plusses and minuses, he just thinks that the star should take more shots.

Here's the thing though--who took the shot that beat Villanova in Philly? Notre Dame in the BET Semis? Vanderbilt in the Sweet 16?

I don't recall the Princeton offense preventing our "star player" from getting the ball in those situations. In fact, two of the three were straight up one-person plays...get Jeff the ball and he's doing something with it. The Vanderbilt play is the exception...the play had an option to go backdoor to Ewing on the baseline early but it wasn't open, so the secondary option was...take a guess.

I just don't think DeCourcy's argument holds up, especially when it's interpreted as "getting your star player(s) the ball" is the criteria for success, since: (1) we spent most of last year doing just that in crunch time situations; (2) the team that's won the last two National Titles didn't exactly have a single star player that always needed the ball.

FL - It's an ignorant argument based on the assumption that we run a gimmick offense. Jeff didn't lack for touches in the OSU game, he just didn't call his own number enough. That's more a product of his personality and game than the our offense. I'm not sure how passing, moving without the ball, and looking for a good shot can hold a team back, but apparently DeCourcy disagrees.

Additionally your comment about Florida reminded me that this is also an offense that 2 years ago thumped a 2 seed Ohio State and was a wide open DJ Owens 3-pointer away from beating Florida. Sure, we lost that game, but isn't that evidence that we can play "National Championship-level basketball?"

[balla]

This guy is getting way more attention than is deserved. He is like the gal still sitting at the bar during last call...

[SFHoya99]

At this point he's just making up crap to suit his argument. We didn't come back against UNC by "scrambling" or anything to do with offense, we came back with defense.

[kchoya]

Jan 4, 2008 1:05:00 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

At this point he's just making up crap to suit his argument. We didn't come back against UNC by "scrambling" or anything to do with offense, we came back with defense.

Exactly. When were we desperately behind? We went toe-to-toe with them in the first half. In the second half they stretched the lead out to double digits with 10 minutes left, but that's it.

And you're right about this "scramble" nonsense. We methodically chipped away at their lead. If anything, UNC was playing scramble offense, throwing up crappy shot after crappy shot.

As was said earlier, this guy's made up his mind and no matter no well the team does, and how prolonged the success is, he's going to continue to trash the system.

[Madgesdiq]

Jan 4, 2008 1:05:00 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

At this point he's just making up crap to suit his argument. We didn't come back against UNC by "scrambling" or anything to do with offense, we came back with defense.

We came back with defense indeed; solid, half court defense, not a scrambling pressure defense. On top of that, UNC could not stop our half court offense. I remember JT3, in his talk at Gaston Hall at reunion weekend stating to the audience that he told the team during the timeout before Ellington's missed shot, (paraphrasing) "If we stop them here, we will blow them out in overtime; they can't stop what we are doing offensively."

[The Stig]

We came back with defense, but we also were down by double digits because of a lack of defense. I remember thinking the whole game that if we could just get some stops on D that we would be able to come back in no time. It's not like we were ever having trouble scoring on them aside from a short slump in the 2nd half at the beginning of their collapse.

[jimbones]

The Princeton Offense is like any motion offense in that it uses spacing, cutting, and screening to get all five players involved. Each player is required to have the ability to shoot, dribble and pass. JTIII has tweaked it so the Hoya's fast break when its there as well as call specific plays to double screen for a particular player or post a player. The center usually touches the ball in each posession whether its in the high, elbow or low post. So I agree with the other posters that its up to a go to player to step up and get his shots off which is possible in this offense. The bottom line is that the Hoya's are poetry in motion to watch when clicking on all cylinders running this so called "system offense". It should also be added that many teams zone G-Town in which they switch to a zone offense which is not the Princeton.

[SFHoya99]

"They switch to a zone offense which is not the Princeton."

I know what you mean but I think that JTIII would take some issue with this statement. To a lot of people, the Princeton, or Princetown or Georgetown offense is a set of plays which includes backdoor cuts as its primary component, often places the center as a shooter instead of a post player and tends to run the offense through the center or forward.

But that's not how Thompson describes his offense and I expect that's not how he teaches his offense. He describes it much more as a philosophy than a set of plays. Space well, keep moving, react to what the defense gives you. If anything, it is that last point which can differentiate it.

In our offense, we put the ball in the post, or drive at players or whatever to force the defense to make a decision -- double down? Help out? Let them go? Then the offense reacts. If your man helps, cut to the basket or find an open spot on the three point line. If you are driving and the defense helps, find that man cutting or open. Sink the open shot.

What DeCourcy is proposing is that in crunchtime, against good teams, you don't want to do that -- you want the best player taking any shot, not the any player taking the best shot (yes, someone in this thread has already pointed this out -- good call). Do you want Michael Jordan taking a shot while double teamed, or do you want him passing to a wide open Jud Beuchler?

To DeCourcy and sportswriters everywhere, the answer is clear: the star. This is a culture of stars; a culture that claims to praise teamwork but criticized LeBron for not taking the shot down the stretch and instead passing to a wide open three point shooter.

However, in reality, I think what wins, what works best, is on a case by case basis. Jordan's game winning shots -- the big ones, at least -- were almost never on double teams. Ehlo, Russell, etc -- all one on one, mainly because they knew he'd hit the open man. Kerr, Hodges, Heck even Buechler hit HUGE wide opens threes down the stretch in big games for the Bulls off Jordan doubles. Robert Horry doesn't exist except in a team that shares the ball.

Sometimes the star shooting versus a double team is better. Sometimes it's better to pass it. Georgetown leans towards the latter, but as someone else pointed out, it is the player's decision, not the system's. Or rather, the system is that the players decide. Jeff hit a pretty big shot versus a double team.

So what's better for Georgetown? Jeff certainly had the capability to beat double teams in scoring down low, though not off the dribble. Still, he was better suited to passing than Mike Sweetney-esque low post play. Both mentally and skills-wise.

And this year? What players are suited to play the go-to role as a scorer who shoots poor shots and still makes them?

Roy is an efficient low post scorer, but a big reason for it is that he doesn't force things. He's not strong or athletic enough to be efficient versus double teams. If he's one on one he can score, but I hope he passes out of doubles -- he's not Sweentey.

Summers is a good shooter but far from the best on the team. He makes some nice drives but he's hardly a guy to "score on demand."

Jessie can get to the hoop, but would anyone want him taking a shot with a hand in his face over passing it?

Jon is money. But he can't create his shot when people know he's trying to create his shot.

I love Austin, but he's more of a shooter than a one on one scorer.

Chris is probably quickest, but a reliable go-to guy?

Our personnel, "best 1-9" or not (and I choose not), is not suited to isolation, one on one heroics. We are a GREAT shooting team that plays with discipline and passes well, moves well without the ball. If we tried to go isolation we simply wouldn't be as good. If Roy tried to shoot against double teams, his shooting % would drop like a rock. (That doesn't mean he can't make quicker decisions to avoid doubles or be more aggressive in rebounding).

And our players coming in next year continue in that mold -- Monroe is not an aggressive offensive player though he may have the talent to carry a team. Sims is improving his low post play from what I've heard but right now I think he is best at anything but a creator -- rebounding, blocking shots, finishing both at the rim and with a nice jumper. Clark is a perfect fit -- little bit o everything, like Jessie Sapp v2.0.

The two players whose games might be a little more to DeCourcy's liking are Wright (though I think he can play our style as well) and possibly Braswell. Though I don't necessarily think either are good enough to carry a Top 10 team.

[RDF]

I've had enough of this dip-feces.

DeCourcy points out how the Hoyas "changed to get back into game..."

What GREAT COACHES DO IS ADAPT TO THE SITUATION and ADJUST THEIR STYLE OF PLAY TO FIT THEIR TALENT OR how the game is being played/what is needed to win.

Where/when has III not done this since taking over? What coach doesn't alter their approach to fit the talent on their roster? Answer? COACHES WHO GET FIRED OR LOSE.

III has been at Georgetown 3 and half seasons--he's gotten a Big East Title, BET Championship, and Final Four Appearance. He doesn't have to apologize for anything and Hoya fans don't have to defend this moron.

Here's the thing about writers like RICHARD-HEAD DIP FECES better known as Mike DeCourcy. They lament the lack of fundamentals, team ball among today's "Me first, AAU gunners" but once they see a style of play that promotes team play and guys share the ball and a coach who alters his approach to fit the talent he has--they jump on his case. This isn't CFB--a loss to Memphis in December isn't going to end the season. Where was this moron when GU was 4-3 with losses to Oregon, ODU, and Duke? All were tournament teams, one an elite 8 team whose "style of play" couldn't handle Florida. BTW that same Florida team who was really only pushed by Georgetown in 2 straight championship seasons in NCAA Tournament. Guess III's style couldn't "handle Florida--while so many others did "

What is this dork going to do when III has mulitiple National Championships with a variation of this style of play--which will happen--remember he's in his 4th year taking over a morbidly disgusting program and has it restored to a point where some prick with a pen is ripping him for not winning a National Semifinal game. I guess John Wooden's style of play "couldn't win" or Coach K couldn't win--not saying III will be Wooden--but Wooden was a flop for 12 years and K was almost canned for his performance for 3 years--and you've got III who has done more then them in his initial 3 years--with far more scrutiny/parity in CBB.

I'm done with this C-USA loving, Memphis suck up--maybe III would've handled the game better if his team went out to a Casino this offseason, started a ruckus, and done hokey ass feces like putting up billboards of his individual players-you know because it's so "cool" what a noted NCAA Violator like John Calipari does--and it's not cool to be head coach at a university that actually has their kids go to CLASS--and play CBB as a TEAM.

BLEEP this DIP-FECES and the day he has to eat these words when Georgetown cuts down the nets--it's going to be served to the point he'll explode from a non-stop force feeding of taunting, name calling, and doubts whether his "style" of writing is worthy of his employment. Til then--he can laugh and speculate, but after that--he better head for hills because I'll email and make crap of him every day the rest of his life.

[Hoya TMF]

Amen. That was inspiring. Now let's go bring the 'chip back where it belongs - McDonough Arena. Go Hoyas!!!!

The real season begins tomorrow!