3xhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by 3xhoya on Feb 9, 2009 15:21:01 GMT -5
I agree that the Princeton offense worked beautifully against both Cuse and UCONN (not to mention the previous two years). The constant between those games, and years past, that made the offense click so well was being able to hit threes at a very good percentage. I feel that being able to hit threes is one of the keys to this offense, something the team has not been able to do this year at all. In the previous years Wallace was able to fill this role. There were times where he was automatic and the defense had to respect his shot. This team does not have anyone remotely close to Wallace's shooting ability and I feel that has been a major downfall for this offense and it makes it very easy to guard by packing it in and bumping the cutters. The team is in dire need of a pure shooter (someone like a McAlarney or Redick). I know I will get some comments about mentioning those two but they are exactly what this team needs. Someone who can come off a screen and shoot. Each time they shoot it feels like the ball is going in and that is not even close to the way it feels when the current Hoyas take a three. Until they are able to knockdown the outside shot, it will be difficult for the offense to be run as efficiently as it once was.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 9, 2009 15:55:32 GMT -5
Assuming we have a 500 record, which we will, only need one more victory, to end 14 - 14, and Hoyas will be one of the top seeds in the NIT due to conference strength and strength of schedule. Its all about our style of play. The Princeton O may be pretty to watch, when it works, but the game has changed, and the Princeton O is outdated. We need points in transition, not forced shots with just seconds remaining on the shot clock. Going 5, 6, 7 minutes without a field goal is unacceptable. Today's game is a game of speed and momentum, not stagnant play. The Princeton O allows lesser teams to be competitive and stay in the game. We have the horses, let the thoroughbreds run. Yes, depth is an issue, but we can be competitive against good teams. We were in the Marquette game, and ran out of gas at the end. Letting Cincy back in, with a 12 point lead, and not scoring a field goal in the final five minutes of regulation and overtime is unacceptable. It was not because of the Cincy D. We should have blown them out. Actually, offenses like the Princeton are designed, among other things, to allow teams that might be physically outmatched to be competitive when facing the better athletes from the opponent.
|
|
|
Post by formerbearcat on Feb 9, 2009 17:35:07 GMT -5
We are the better team, certainly better than Cincy and Seton Hall.
I was at the UConn game in Hartford. In the first ten minutes, we applied pressure, and ran them out of the gym. I'm not saying never run the Princeton O, just not all the time. At times you need to change the tempo.
We play with multiple defenses based upon the situation and personnel, the same is true with offense.
We had Cincy down by 12 in the second half, went into an offensive shell, and let them back in. It's not that they got hot, we went iced cold. No field goals in the final 10 to 12 minutes of regulation and OT. Force the issue, make something happen.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Feb 9, 2009 17:41:31 GMT -5
The last 15 minutes on Saturday were not the Princeton offense. Once Cincinnati applied hard full court pressure, Georgetown rushed everything and abandoned the offense.
The Princeton offense is not designed for lesser teams. It is designed to get high percentage shots and take advantage of the three point line. Carril ran the offense in the Ivy League where either Princeton or Penn always had the best athletes. The Princeton offense requires players athletic enough to dribble, pass, shoot, and make quick decisions.
Is athleticism only running and jumping with the ball, or does it include passing, ball handling, body control, playing without the ball, etc.?
|
|
royski
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,296
|
Post by royski on Feb 9, 2009 17:56:14 GMT -5
We are the better team, certainly better than Cincy and Seton Hall. I was at the UConn game in Hartford. In the first ten minutes, we applied pressure, and ran them out of the gym. I'm not saying never run the Princeton O, just not all the time. At times you need to change the tempo. We play with multiple defenses based upon the situation and personnel, the same is true with offense. We had Cincy down by 12 in the second half, went into an offensive shell, and let them back in. It's not that they got hot, we went iced cold. No field goals in the final 10 to 12 minutes of regulation and OT. Force the issue, make something happen. We are not better than Cincinnati. I know this because I just watched them beat us twice, once in their place, and once in ours.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 9, 2009 19:33:03 GMT -5
Inconsistency in our 3 point shooting has been a major problem. Maybe Nikita is shooting the lights out in practice and that's why JTIII is giving him more playing time. He appears to have the best form on the team. Hope he can start making more in actual games.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 9, 2009 19:44:19 GMT -5
The last 15 minutes on Saturday were not the Princeton offense The Princeton offense is not designed for lesser teams. It is designed to get high percentage shots and take advantage of the three point line. Carril ran the offense in the Ivy League where either Princeton or Penn always had the best athletes. The Princeton offense requires players athletic enough to dribble, pass, shoot, and make quick decisions. BMartin is as right as his namesake was talented. I am sure that many board members have heard Pete talk about "the Princeton". He says it isn't something he invented, he just borrowed (stole) a lot of ideas from the Boston Celtics of Red Auerback and the NY Knicks of Red Holzman. Those teams were among the most fundamentally sound, smartest and most disciplined teams in the history of the NBA. And the have the Championship banners to prove it. "Oh, but that was eons ago. The game has changed, the athletes are better/faster/bigger.... yada yada yada." It is a concept of spacing, movement, sharing the ball and ..... drum roll.... taking what the defense gives you. It makes lesser talented athletes more effective, and it makes gifted athletes better too... as long as they are smart enough and disciplined enough to take advantage of it. The problems with this year's team are not due to the P Offense, unless you say the players are not smart enough or disciplined enough to get it and the coaching staff had not done a good enough job of teaching. Giving up on it is definitely NOT the answer.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,609
|
Post by guru on Feb 9, 2009 20:00:16 GMT -5
We are the better team, certainly better than Cincy and Seton Hall. I was at the UConn game in Hartford. In the first ten minutes, we applied pressure, and ran them out of the gym. I'm not saying never run the Princeton O, just not all the time. At times you need to change the tempo. We play with multiple defenses based upon the situation and personnel, the same is true with offense. We had Cincy down by 12 in the second half, went into an offensive shell, and let them back in. It's not that they got hot, we went iced cold. No field goals in the final 10 to 12 minutes of regulation and OT. Force the issue, make something happen. We are not better than Cincinnati. I know this because I just watched them beat us twice, once in their place, and once in ours. lol - pretty hard to make the argument that we are better than Cincinnati, much as it pains me to admit. If we rebound and finish strong, in fact, expect to hear HOWLS if we somehow slip into the NCAAs and the Bearcats are left out.
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Feb 10, 2009 9:01:41 GMT -5
There is no chance this team makes the NCAAs this year. I'd love to be wrong, but what evidence is there that would leave me optimistic about our chances? I'd like the focus for the rest of the season to be reestablishing itself as a TEAM. Perhaps, as a team, they can develop some level of understanding of JTIIIs offensive philosophy and commit to playing defense.
I'd also feel good about the future if ANYONE looked like they enjoyed playing the game, but I'll take some semblance of a team first.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,369
|
Post by tashoya on Feb 10, 2009 9:59:58 GMT -5
I don't get the bashing of the offense we run for the reasons that have been eloquently laid out by a few. Additionally, I find it comical that, in backtracking, some would like to see us run the Princeton "some of the time" to change the tempo. Yes. Let's do that. Let's take the Princeton which, according to most, is difficult to learn with a lengthy learning curve for some players and ADD to that a whole DIIFFERENT kind of offense too! Brilliant!! I guess back to back regular season championships mean nothing when our 3 point shooting is horrific and our passing is, mostly, less than crisp. ADD ANOTHER OFFENSE!!! Seriously....
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 10, 2009 12:19:56 GMT -5
The last 15 minutes on Saturday were not the Princeton offense. Once Cincinnati applied hard full court pressure, Georgetown rushed everything and abandoned the offense. The Princeton offense is not designed for lesser teams. It is designed to get high percentage shots and take advantage of the three point line. Carril ran the offense in the Ivy League where either Princeton or Penn always had the best athletes. The Princeton offense requires players athletic enough to dribble, pass, shoot, and make quick decisions. Is athleticism only running and jumping with the ball, or does it include passing, ball handling, body control, playing without the ball, etc.? I agree and disagree. The philosophy is to control the ball and therefore the clock. You shorten the game while making the opponent play solid defense for the majority of the shot clock, then ideally get a high percentage shot. Compare that to an up-tempo pace, where the idea is to get out and run up and down the floor maximizing possessions. In theory, the more athletic team would flourish in such a system. But I agree that the intricacies of the Princeton offense are often overlooked. Doing it right is a lot different from doing it almost right.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 10, 2009 12:28:14 GMT -5
The way Princeton plays now is to control the ball. We don't always play that way. Even Pete Carril would tell you the pace of the game is not a requirement of the system.
If you can play fast, you can play fast. Georgetown has plenty of times.
People associate the offense with the pace Princeton plays, but that's not necessary.
--------
Up tempo offense have a horrible track record as well. There are two main issues with them. One, only one team can be the "most athletic" in college basketball. Two, tournament ball almost always comes down to half court execution. Rarely does one good team run another good team off the floor. You look great versus clearly inferior teams but you can struggle to score against teams as talented as you. It's one reason why I think many Roy Williams teams have underacheived.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 10, 2009 12:32:24 GMT -5
The last 15 minutes on Saturday were not the Princeton offense. Once Cincinnati applied hard full court pressure, Georgetown rushed everything and abandoned the offense. The Princeton offense is not designed for lesser teams. It is designed to get high percentage shots and take advantage of the three point line. Carril ran the offense in the Ivy League where either Princeton or Penn always had the best athletes. The Princeton offense requires players athletic enough to dribble, pass, shoot, and make quick decisions. Is athleticism only running and jumping with the ball, or does it include passing, ball handling, body control, playing without the ball, etc.? I agree and disagree. The philosophy is to control the ball and therefore the clock. You shorten the game while making the opponent play solid defense for the majority of the shot clock, then ideally get a high percentage shot. Compare that to an up-tempo pace, where the idea is to get out and run up and down the floor maximizing possessions. In theory, the more athletic team would flourish in such a system. But I agree that the intricacies of the Princeton offense are often overlooked. Doing it right is a lot different from doing it almost right. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The philosophy of the offense is to get a good shot. It can be run quickly (like the Kings did with Mike Bibby) or it can be run slowly (like Princeton did when the beat UCLA). It's not Grinnell's offense, but it doesn't have to be the shot clock version of the Four Corners--it can adjust to the personnel. Now please go lecture some other fan base on the REAL philosophy behind their offense.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 10, 2009 13:02:33 GMT -5
Nevermind. You aren't paying attention. I never said it was solely used for any particular purpose. One benefit is that it can help a less physically gifted team be more competitive. That's all I'm saying. If you disagree with that, then we can agree to disagree. But don't lump me in to some group criticizing the offense or the scheme itself. That would be many others on this board, not me.
P.S. Take special notice of the phrase "among other things" in my original post which somehow created this controversy.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Feb 10, 2009 13:08:07 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more I think everyone is over complicating the whole issue of whats wrong. It's not the offense, player toughness, chemistry problems, selfishness, etc etc, its simply youth. We basically lost Wallace, Hibbert, Crawford, Ewing Jr, Macklin, Rivers and Sapp from last years team. Our senior leader has completely disappeared and left the burdern on a junior, who you can tell is trying to lead and guide the players in game, but just isn't ready yet to fully lead a team. Maybe if Sapp hadn't comepletely disappeared earlier our season would be different. But right now we are where we are, a new young team playing in a very, very expierenced leauge. You can see what this team can become, if they stick together next year. They have shown the signs of suffocating defense, like the last 16 minutes yesterday. Signs of very effective offense, Marquette game and quite a few others. They just can't put it all together consistently enough to be a good team yet. People say that this team just runs from every challenge and melts in adversity, well those last defensive possesions on Saturday proved to me otherwise. Could they have handled adversity on the offensive end better? Yes. They are far from perfect when it come to handling adversity, but they are getting better at it. It's almost as if people expect them to be able to handle pressure situations as well as past Georgetown teams right off the bat. Yesterday was really only their second close game of the season, and they failed and made mistakes. But guess what? Thats how you learn, and get better at handleing them. I don't think its a character flaw, as much as in expierence flaw, and even the guys with expierence, mainly Summers and Freeman, we probably a bit spoiled playing with those 08 guys, as they never really had to be the one to take the tough shot.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 10, 2009 14:21:31 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more I think everyone is over complicating the whole issue of whats wrong. It's not the offense, player toughness, chemistry problems, selfishness, etc etc, its simply youth. We basically lost Wallace, Hibbert, Crawford, Ewing Jr, Macklin, Rivers and Sapp from last years team. Our senior leader has completely disappeared and left the burdern on a junior, who you can tell is trying to lead and guide the players in game, but just isn't ready yet to fully lead a team. Maybe if Sapp hadn't comepletely disappeared earlier our season would be different. But right now we are where we are, a new young team playing in a very, very expierenced leauge. You can see what this team can become, if they stick together next year. They have shown the signs of suffocating defense, like the last 16 minutes yesterday. Signs of very effective offense, Marquette game and quite a few others. They just can't put it all together consistently enough to be a good team yet. People say that this team just runs from every challenge and melts in adversity, well those last defensive possesions on Saturday proved to me otherwise. Could they have handled adversity on the offensive end better? Yes. They are far from perfect when it come to handling adversity, but they are getting better at it. It's almost as if people expect them to be able to handle pressure situations as well as past Georgetown teams right off the bat. Yesterday was really only their second close game of the season, and they failed and made mistakes. But guess what? Thats how you learn, and get better at handleing them. I don't think its a character flaw, as much as in expierence flaw, and even the guys with expierence, mainly Summers and Freeman, we probably a bit spoiled playing with those 08 guys, as they never really had to be the one to take the tough shot. Hear, hear.
|
|