EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,235
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 9:37:56 GMT -5
Post by EtomicB on Mar 12, 2009 9:37:56 GMT -5
Exactly. What high school kid in his right mind wants to go to a program that has produced 2 Big East rookies of the year and the Big East player of the year (who left early to be drafted #5)recently? I have been saying all year that the problem was defense, not offense. Look at the stats of the games we lost to quality teams. Will the existing players become better defensive players next year? Probably a little bit, but JTIII needs to consider going with a bigger/stronger lineup that might include Monroe plus either Vaughn or Sims. That way, when opponents blow by our guards there is at least someone there to foul them or cause some disruption. Monroe was left by himself too often to defend two people in the paint and he's just not going to have success trying to do that. Exactly! I always wanted to see Macklin on the floor w/ Hibbert more. Now, my problem is that I want to see more Sims w/ Monroe. Those two seemed to be developing a nice chemistry. Sims has shown a shot-blocking ability. I think that his development will be huge, and if he and Monroe get time together, we're a substantially better defensive team. I agree completely with this Strummer. I know HS looked lost at times but so did Jason at times but coach stuck with him, I wish he had done the same for Henry. Having said that I believe he did improve a great deal and will do well if he dedicates himself during the offseason. I'd also like to see player "play" their most favorable positions next year. Dujuan needs to be the 3, Austin needs to be the 2 and Greg should be the 4. This may help to shore up the rebounding and defense a little anyway plus the offense should flow much better since it will more difficult for teams to double Greg on the wings when he has the ball.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 9:42:25 GMT -5
Post by the_way on Mar 12, 2009 9:42:25 GMT -5
Exactly! I always wanted to see Macklin on the floor w/ Hibbert more. Now, my problem is that I want to see more Sims w/ Monroe. Those two seemed to be developing a nice chemistry. Sims has shown a shot-blocking ability. I think that his development will be huge, and if he and Monroe get time together, we're a substantially better defensive team. I agree completely with this Strummer. I know HS looked lost at times but so did Jason at times but coach stuck with him, I wish he did the same for Henry. Having said that I believe he did improve a great deal and will do well if he dedicates himself during the offseason. I'd also like to see player "play" their most favorable positions next year. Dujuan needs to be the 3, Austin needs to be the 2 and Greg should be the 4. This may help to shore up the rebounding and defense a little anyway plus the offense should flow much better since it will more difficult for teams to double Greg on the wings when he has the ball. Henry isn't that good right now. thats why Coach didn't stick with him. There isn't much he can do. I don't know what the obession is with Henry. But he is another Macklin right now. He'll have 3 more years to develop into a player. But there isn't much Sims can do at all. He can't defend in the post, and he can't fit into the offense. Thats why he didn't play much. Jason is raw too, but not that raw. He gives at least something when he is out on the court. Same with Vaughn. Henry is a project right now, that needs serious development. The upside is that he has good athleticism and moves well. Now he needs to be coached up and developed.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,813
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 9:50:22 GMT -5
Post by RusskyHoya on Mar 12, 2009 9:50:22 GMT -5
If it really does take multiple seasons for players to operate efficiently in this offense (which I don't really buy), it better be the best offensive scheme in the country. Otherwise we would be trading inefficiency for players' early years without any gains over other offenses in later years. Statistically, it WAS one of the best offensive schemes in the country, in terms of efficiency, during the last two seasons. We were scoring on a very high % of possessions. As for the NBA and the triangle, even more veteran players need awhile to get used to it. The merits of the Gonzaga Crybaby notwithstanding, the point of the comparison is that it is a convoluted offensive system that can be difficult to grasp for younger players and can misfire badly if players are not on the same page (Kwame Brown Alert!). That doesn't mean it can't be a successful offense. Obviously, in the NBA you can and do have your players for longer, but the idea is similar.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 9:54:15 GMT -5
Post by bmartin on Mar 12, 2009 9:54:15 GMT -5
There is a huge misunderstanding about the offense. The learning curve is not because the offense is complicated, it is because players have to learn a few skills other than going one on five. What takes time is learning how to pass the ball and how to move without the ball to get in position to catch a pass. The offense itself is not more complicated than other offenses, it just relies on a few skills and an understanding of teamwork.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 10:10:50 GMT -5
Post by Filo on Mar 12, 2009 10:10:50 GMT -5
Some good posts here.
I agree with what GPHoya so eloquently wrote, and I also share _way's incredulity with the Sims obsession on this board. He looked lost for much of the season, and if the staff thought he could have been making some meaningful contributions, he would have been playing more. On the positive side, he seemed to be playing better toward the very end of the season, and hopefully he can contribute a lot next season.
I also agree that defense was as much, if not more, of the problem this year. But to get back to the discussion re: the offense -- it seems like there is a pretty difficult catch-22 here. The offense is difficult to master and requires continuity and experience, so the coach needs to retain players and have veteran leadership. However, given that the system is difficult, some kids come here and either can't adapt or don't want to adapt to it, and others get frustrated, which leads to the risk of transfers / early departures. Not really an ideal system, wouldn't you say?
I have never been one to advocate scrapping the system or going back to the drawing board, but if the system is so complex that every time we have a relatively young and inexperienced squad, we will have a season that frustrates the hell out of players, fans an coaches alike, is it really an ideal system for college basketball? So are we saying that we'll have to have a miserable season like we just had every few years so that we can build up to a couple of great ensuing seasons? I guess I could love with that, but I am not really sure it has to be that way.
|
|
Grandpa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 732
Member is Online
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 10:26:01 GMT -5
Post by Grandpa on Mar 12, 2009 10:26:01 GMT -5
Great post GP - appreciate your insight into the comparison to the 83-84 team in terms of a disappointing season not necessarily being a sign that previous positive results during JTIII's first few seasons were just a mirage.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 10:26:08 GMT -5
Post by NCHoya on Mar 12, 2009 10:26:08 GMT -5
Listen, at this point if you cannot see the benefits of the Princeton O than you never will. It is an offense designed to make a good team great. Sure, this team had enough talent that maybe another system makes the Hoyas pretty good (WVU level) and than we level off at that pretty good to good level.
However, if we want to get to the elite level I believe, like JT3, the offensive system will deliver. You have to view this as an investment, plain and simple. Fans that obssess about the short-term and immediate results will always have a hard time with this aspect of JT3's way. If you want BIG returns you need to make the investment. If you want to simply be above average go ahead and ditch the system and be a 20 win team every year that peaks at the Sweet 16.
If you want something that gives you a shot at BE titles and NCs than you stick with JT3's philosophy. Does this mean we will stink every once in a while when we graduate a bumper crop or get hit by roster turnover? Yes it does. And I have finally accepted it as necessary evil to get where we want to be.
As for not attracting top recruits. Two thoughts. One, is that a disaster? After all JT3 values TEAM over any individual, I mean we will likely never see a Hoya average more than 18 ppg under JT3. So if you are me-first, attention grabbing player you will not come here. OK, I will enjoy the game where we beat that player's team with our team of 4 not 5 star recruits. Two, I actually believe we will continue to attract top recruits like Monroe who see the success of Green and Monroe as freshman and the long-term success of Hibbert. Nothing we do prevents a player from becoming an NBA millionaire. In fact, we do it better than most teams in our league lately.
|
|
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 10:28:12 GMT -5
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 12, 2009 10:28:12 GMT -5
I agree completely with this Strummer. I know HS looked lost at times but so did Jason at times but coach stuck with him, I wish he did the same for Henry. Having said that I believe he did improve a great deal and will do well if he dedicates himself during the offseason. I'd also like to see player "play" their most favorable positions next year. Dujuan needs to be the 3, Austin needs to be the 2 and Greg should be the 4. This may help to shore up the rebounding and defense a little anyway plus the offense should flow much better since it will more difficult for teams to double Greg on the wings when he has the ball. Henry isn't that good right now. thats why Coach didn't stick with him. There isn't much he can do. I don't know what the obession is with Henry. But he is another Macklin right now. He'll have 3 more years to develop into a player. But there isn't much Sims can do at all. He can't defend in the post, and he can't fit into the offense. Thats why he didn't play much. Jason is raw too, but not that raw. He gives at least something when he is out on the court. Same with Vaughn. Henry is a project right now, that needs serious development. The upside is that he has good athleticism and moves well. Now he needs to be coached up and developed. Sims is already ahead of Macklin in a lot of ways. I don't cringe when he puts the ball on the floor. I don't think we will ever see a Hack-a-Sims strategy as we could have w/ Macklin. Sims has had better hands than Macklin. If there's a comparison, I think Vaughn is closer to Macklin b/c both have hands like small blocks of cement. But even Vaughn is better than Mack. If it's in the flow of the system, I could see Sims taking some jumpers that wouldn't make me curse at the television. Most importantly, Sims and Monroe just look like they have a chemistry. I always thought Macklin and Rivers looked like they had a chemistry, but if we're talking about dangerous pairings, I'll take Monroe and Sims, thank you very much. Next year's starts MUST be: Wright, Freeman, Summers, Monroe, Sims. Clark/Nikita/Vaughn off the bench, depending on what position we need subbed. And then we see where Hollis and IF Omar fit. Hopefully, we also pick up another '09 to provide some depth.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 10:29:33 GMT -5
Post by NCHoya on Mar 12, 2009 10:29:33 GMT -5
I agree completely with this Strummer. I know HS looked lost at times but so did Jason at times but coach stuck with him, I wish he did the same for Henry. Having said that I believe he did improve a great deal and will do well if he dedicates himself during the offseason. I'd also like to see player "play" their most favorable positions next year. Dujuan needs to be the 3, Austin needs to be the 2 and Greg should be the 4. This may help to shore up the rebounding and defense a little anyway plus the offense should flow much better since it will more difficult for teams to double Greg on the wings when he has the ball. Henry isn't that good right now. thats why Coach didn't stick with him. There isn't much he can do. I don't know what the obession is with Henry. But he is another Macklin right now. He'll have 3 more years to develop into a player. But there isn't much Sims can do at all. He can't defend in the post, and he can't fit into the offense. Thats why he didn't play much. Jason is raw too, but not that raw. He gives at least something when he is out on the court. Same with Vaughn. Henry is a project right now, that needs serious development. The upside is that he has good athleticism and moves well. Now he needs to be coached up and developed. I am with you _way, I do not get the Henry thing. Kid is FULL of upside, but he is not ready right now. I think he may make the biggest leap next year from this year and we will be much, much better off for it! But for now, it seems obvious he is a little lost at times, which you really could not afford this season.
|
|
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 10:30:21 GMT -5
Post by FrazierFanatic on Mar 12, 2009 10:30:21 GMT -5
Only semi-news here is that Barker is stating an expectation that everyone will be coming back rather than speculating about departures. Time will tell, but one could have imagined defections based on both personal and teamwide disappointment. The sharing of minutes and opportunities this year could leave nearly everyone with a belief that they could get more time next year by improving. No one should lack motivation. This was unquestionably a disappointing year, but not so much as to take my faith in the coaching staff and the direction of the program back to square one as some have suggested. My memory is just not that short nor is my sense of gratitude that limited. JT III knows basketball and he is an incredibly hard worker who is driven to succeed. He has a sustainable leadership style and, aside from a blip in his first recruiting class, he is going about things in a way that is compatable with Georgetown's values. I remain convinced that we could not have a better person coaching our team and that he will be viewed at the end of his career as one of the elite college coaches. It is easy to be loyal to a coach when things are going great, but to expect the loyalty to be reciprocated, it is surely more important for the institution and its fan base to express confidence and support even as we are caught by surprise by the setback this year. Of course, people are entitled to their views on any subject and many of the criticisms I have read here strike me as constructive and worthy of consideration. The views that advocate that we throw out the basic approach and justify their views by diminishing past accomplishments are less attractive to me and strike me as less mature and reflective. I presume that no one has said anything intelligent here that JT III has not already considered and that he and his staff will engage in some thoughtful self-reflection on what went wrong and needs to be done differently next year. That is certainly part of the additional experience factor that I expect will produce substantially better results next year. Recruiting a bruising power forward and tapping into and better motivating the competitive core of the returning base will surely help and strike me as the major challenges. I remember being pretty disappointed by the sophomore year of Ewing, Martin, and Jones and thought that group should have done more with such promising freshman as Jackson, Wingate, Broadnax and Dalton and capable juniors as Brown and Gene Smith. That group lost ten games (including to American), bowed out to Syracuse in the opening round of the Big East and lost to Memphis State in the second round of the NCAA.Things straightened out pretty quickly when Michael Graham and Reggie Williams showed up the next year and underclassmen figured out how to fill the leadership void that Eric Smith and Floyd had left behind. We talk about the talent of this year's team, but consider the players on the 83 and 84 teams if you want some perspective. GP - a nice comparison to the disappointment of the 82-83 team. However I only want another Michael Graham if he promises to take a swing at a Syracuse guy!
|
|
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 10:48:11 GMT -5
Post by gojeffgoroyunder7 on Mar 12, 2009 10:48:11 GMT -5
Anyone seen Austin lately? No, but what are you getting at? Because I will say this, this team needs a good Austin Freeman to be the team we all know we are capable of being next year.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 10:48:30 GMT -5
Post by Buckets on Mar 12, 2009 10:48:30 GMT -5
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 10:54:38 GMT -5
Post by the_way on Mar 12, 2009 10:54:38 GMT -5
Since we keep bringing up the offense.
Its not the scheme. I think we place too much emphasis on the scheme. The scheme isn't what made us successful the past couple of years.
If that were the case, then why aren't more guys who were Pete Carrill disciples have the same success as JTIII?
If we are talking offense with this year's team, you can throw schemes out of the window because this team lacks poor fundamentals and skill-sets (either undeveloped or non-existent) on offense.
It starts with fundamentals, the basics first, and then you can start talking about schemes.
Who on this team are actually great ball-handlers? Outside of Wright and Sapp?
Who on this team can effectively create their own shot? Wright
Who on this team is a great passer? Monroe
Who on this team is a great shooter? *crickets*
Who on this team is a great inside player? *crickets*
Now, if we are talking just basic essentials, basic basketball skills. we are kind of lacking in a lot of areas.
So, how can one even draw up a particular offense, if we can't even do the basic fundamentals, like dribble, pass, move without the basketball, and shoot?
I think the thing that has baffled me the most is the players unwillingness or impatience in actually running the offense. Its like we fell in love with the 3 and didn't care about anything else. I don't know if guys simply aren't buying in to what JTIII is teaching or they are just obliviuos to the fact that we need good and crisp ball-movement on the court to get the shots.
Right now, we got a lot of 3-pt chuckers, and thats about it.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,654
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 11:01:38 GMT -5
Post by guru on Mar 12, 2009 11:01:38 GMT -5
Anyone seen Austin lately? No, but what are you getting at? Because I will say this, this team needs a good Austin Freeman to be the team we all know we are capable of being next year. I'd like to know too - what ARE you getting at with that question about Austin's whereabouts?
|
|
adlai
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 158
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 11:03:54 GMT -5
Post by adlai on Mar 12, 2009 11:03:54 GMT -5
The offense is much more complicated than most as it is very much based on spacing. The cuts are available because a defender makes a slight step and loses a step on the offensive player, assuming that the other offensive players recognize this and have drawn their defenders away from passing lanes and away from the basket. The result is an uncontested layup. If the defenders shift to cut this off, it tends to result in an uncontested three. Thus, the theory of the offense is tend to pressure the defense for 25 seconds and hope for a small misstep leading to either of these outcomes. If it does not open up, then we revert to a more traditional offense of sorts requiring someone to make a play on their own.
The basic problem with this is that while we punish defenders who are out of position, if our offensive players are slightly out of position it does not work. The small differences in spacing make or break the offense and players must learn how to react to what other players on our side are doing.
We had our own troubles with spacing as players were learning to adapt to the system and each other. However, due to our lack of three point shooting and some of Greg's offensive limitations this year, it became much easier for teams to pack it in on defense and try to limit our ability to get spacing. If we cannot stretch teams out to play defense to the three point line, we will struggle more on offense.
The Princeton offense is brilliant in that it takes the two shots in basketball with the highest expected point value--layups and open threes--and makes that the cornerstone of the offense. For each layup attempted the result should be somewhere near two points and each open three somewhere near 1.4 points. The problem is that a layup is much tougher to get than an open three as it generally requires a tough/risky pass, which is not likely to always go through. For example, Jeff tended to have a fairly high number of turnovers each game, but these tended to be good turnovers in a sense. They were often trying to feed a guy driving for a layup. If it goes through, we get two points automatically, meaning it is a risk worth taking if it has say a 70% chance of getting to the recipient. Thus, the expected value if actually more like 1.4 points from a layup taking the risk of a turnover into account.
In the end, this system really is a form of offensive genius. If properly run, it results in the highest possible value of points for each shot taken. Invariably, not every possession will end this way and there will be silly turnovers, resulting in a lower value of points per shot, but the upside is that while we score fewer points overall, it results in a higher point per possession.
The downside is that it requires patience to learn and players with the necessary skills. It is very helpful if all players can shoot reasonably from the three and are good passers. Players also must have a high basketball IQ to make it work. If these things fall into place, then there is really no better offensive system. If they don't, then there is a season of frustration as it results in neither easy layups or open threes.
As for recruiting, I don't think we are hurt at all by the system. If players want to make the NBA, this system requires them to be efficient scorers, understand spacing, and to be able to handle the ball (dribbling and passing) from all positions on the floor. These are all very important skills to succeed in the long run at the higher level, especially for more complex offenses like Phil Jackson's.
We can't compete for every top recruit, but nor do we want to. Tyreke Evans or OJ Mayo would be a disaster for this system as one player can destroy it. However, if we get very intelligent and unselfish recruits with a variety of skills, we will succeed with time. Some will succeed earlier, such as Jeff and Jon and I hope Hollis, but for others it takes more time. Regardless, everyone becomes a better basketball player. It may not result in flashy stats at the college level, but these things are evident to scouts at the next level.
If players and fans are patient, most years we will have a very potent offensive team. This was not our year for a variety of reasons which have all been cited. Our offense didn't produce enough points to get out ahead of teams as in years past. Moreover, our youth/inexperience certainly showed over the last few minutes of many games this year. In years past Jeff, Jon, Roy, Pat, and Jessie always stepped up at the end of games and this year it just wasn't there. To be successful that must develop in the future, but also it comes out of confidence in the offensive system. If we think we can score each possession, players are not scared to take the shot down the stretch.
Give it some time. There will be down years when we don't run the system and lack some leadership, but with the right mix of guys who are committed to the system, we will be very good in most years. The past results show that when run properly, the system works.
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 11:08:52 GMT -5
Post by Big Dog on Mar 12, 2009 11:08:52 GMT -5
It is interesting that there has been little to no discussion that I've seen about the impact of the longer distance from the 3-point line. Remember how JTIII and others were telling us that it wouldn't impact Gtown a bit because players are generally encouraged to shoot from further out?
Still, as much fun as it is to discuss the offense, things fell apart for this team when we struggled defensively, and if we could have gotten any critical stops down the stretch we'd have had a real chance at knocking of Marquette at least once, not to mention beating Seton Hall, Cincy, etc whom we could never keep from scoring late when we needed to.
At the same time, at least since the Nova game, the offense completely fell apart. That could be a matter of hitting the wall and getting lazy with assignments.
|
|
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 11:15:54 GMT -5
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 12, 2009 11:15:54 GMT -5
Another great post, Adlai. Definitely recommended (no, I take that back... REQUIRED) reading for any posters (newbie or not) who don't believe that the Princeton offense works. I have not seen a better explanation of it on this board anywhere else.
Dog, I briefly touched upon the longer 3 point line in another thread, but basically the gist of it was this: our 3pt shooting was way down in terms of percentage (33% this year, as opposed to generally around 36-39% the previous 4 years). Pomeroy has the national 3pt% average down 0.8% from a year ago, so the longer line has had some, but minimal effect. In terms of national rankings, I believe we were anywhere from 38th to 120th-ish the last 4 years, and this year we were 221st. So while the line may have had something to do with the decline, losing a guy like Wallace definitely had a larger impact.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,654
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 11:19:34 GMT -5
Post by guru on Mar 12, 2009 11:19:34 GMT -5
The coroner's report: This team was killed by its lack of rebounding and defense.
The offense crumbled in the season's second half, but the primary cause of death this season was an inability to stop the other team, and an inability to rebound - so that we never got second shots, and when the other team missed they got WAY too many second, third and fourth opportunities to score and exploit our aforementioned weak defense. The debate about the Princeton offense completely misses the point of what happened to this team this season, IMO.
|
|
HoyaSC
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 514
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 12:54:44 GMT -5
Post by HoyaSC on Mar 12, 2009 12:54:44 GMT -5
I feel a lot better about things after reading Adlai's post. Terrific points.
I'd also add that when JTIII's offense is run correctly, it is a thing of beauty. The way the team played the last three years was so much fun to watch. The biggest change from the Esh and late Pops years was that now we were "the smart team," which I loved. That's the way I want us to play. I don't want us to look like these other one-man-gang teams.
I think he'll get us back to being "the smart team" next year.
|
|
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 13:16:48 GMT -5
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 12, 2009 13:16:48 GMT -5
Big East games only (from Hoya Prospectus, linked to by freemoney):
Player Min On Off On/40 Off/40 Net/40 Summers, DaJuan 449:44 - 55 + 26 - 4.9 + 6.5 -11.4 Freeman, Austin 494:08 - 42 + 13 - 3.4 + 4.5 - 7.9 Monroe, Greg 496:01 + 52 - 81 + 4.2 -28.4 +32.6 Wright, Chris 506:27 + 1 - 30 + 0.1 -11.6 +11.7 Sapp, Jessie 366:32 - 10 - 19 - 1.1 - 3.1 + 2.0 Clark, Jason 257:56 - 52 + 23 - 8.1 + 2.6 -10.7 Vaughn, Julian 102:39 - 65 + 36 -25.3 + 2.8 -28.2 Sims, Henry 98:57 + 27 - 56 +10.9 - 4.4 +15.3 Wattad, Omar 102:14 + 9 - 38 + 3.5 - 3.0 + 6.5 Mescheriakov, Nikita 175:22 - 10 - 19 - 2.3 - 1.7 - 0.5
I know, I know. There are all sorts of statistical reasons that my conclusion is wrong. The math is not sound. I'm not over here crunching numbers. But someone explain to me how Henry doesn't look like a damn good option, especially compared to Nikita. And Vaughn should probably not touch the floor anymore until he can hold onto the basketball. Austin and Dajuan also a major problem.
|
|