Do we have it backwards?

[PopeJohn2]

"My style will be predicated on the team. You can have a style, but if you don't have the players for the style, it will be no good."

- Patrick Ewing

Is it too much to expect from our coaches/scouts to know for certain that all the players we recruit will fit the Princeton. I asked in another thread if the Princeton had too slim a margin for error to build a sustainable successful program upon?

Fire away.

[RDF]

WTF is "sustainable success"? One down year in 5 years means the program can't sustain anything? One thing about any system--if your players have agendas/don't do what they are told--it won't work. Thing is--if you WATCHED Georgetown play--how the hell could you NOT NOTICE this past year's team was given more freedom to play uptempo/take early shots??

Any sport is about talent--but also talent that plays cohesively. Things you can't take into account--bickering/posturing about who should be "focal point" of things, people who are incapable of handling the responsibility of leadership, and guys who refuse to play as a TEAM.

So you can have the NBA All Star team-but if players don't buy into their role--they aren't going to do much as a team.

The goal is to win--and there are different ways to do so--but Georgetown has been successful as a program and in player development under III, so what is point of this? I love Pat, but he's talking about the NBA--not collegiate basketball. The NBA has best players in world--the college game has guys who are developing/maturing. Problem is--the college game also has guys who think they are best in country and trying to get to NBA ASAP which doesn't always equate to helping their team win games.

[bmartin]

The Princeton offense is the most adaptable system there is. It isn't scripted. It can run. It can slow down. It can play big. It can play small. It merely requires players to play basketball in a way that is hard to defend. Players who don't want to learn how to dribble or pass or move without the ball are not as good as they think they are and should not be coddled.

[SaxaCD]

Exactly, RDF -- I notice those NBA teams playing in international competition weren't playing "The Princeton style" but still struggled against more coherent units. It's not a coincidence that they won the last major international get together AFTER playing together for quite a while, learning each others' games/roles, etc.

May 31, 2009 0:59:00 GMT -5 RDF said:

WTF is "sustainable success"? One down year in 5 years means the program can't sustain anything? One thing about any system--if your players have agendas/don't do what they are told--it won't work. Thing is--if you WATCHED Georgetown play--how the hell could you NOT NOTICE this past year's team was given more freedom to play uptempo/take early shots??

Any sport is about talent--but also talent that plays cohesively. Things you can't take into account--bickering/posturing about who should be "focal point" of things, people who are incapable of handling the responsibility of leadership, and guys who refuse to play as a TEAM.

So you can have the NBA All Star team-but if players don't buy into their role--they aren't going to do much as a team.

The goal is to win--and there are different ways to do so--but Georgetown has been successful as a program and in player development under III, so what is point of this? I love Pat, but he's talking about the NBA--not collegiate basketball. The NBA has best players in world--the college game has guys who are developing/maturing. Problem is--the college game also has guys who think they are best in country and trying to get to NBA ASAP which doesn't always equate to helping their team win games.

[tjm62]

All this talk over the princeton offense seems pretty silly to me. I do remember thinking a few years ago that the team seemed unwilling to take fast-break shots, but none of that really seemed to be a factor last year. The system has proven to be quite adjustable -- after all, what does it really consist of now? Good passing? A willingness to methodically cut through opponent defenses? These are things that are always welcome, and, done correctly, will always help the team.

I understand that the media needs stupid story lines to harp on ("Is GEORGETOWN getting TOO CEREBRAL??")-- it's a lot easier than actually analyzing the team. But it's obviously been blown out of proportion, and I don't like this false opposition that's been created that seems to make "athleticism" and "our offense" be in direct conflict.

[Dhall]

Had last year's team played defense or rebounded on an average basis or better, nobody would be talking about the Princeton offense. When the team can't defend or rebound, the offense is also going to suffer no matter what system we're playing.

[lichoya68]

we will be just fine its a new day and we will surprise some people as on great coach once said you dont know what you really got till they come and you jab em and see how they jab back go hoyas go jt3 ;D ;D ;D ;D

[SirSaxa]

May 31, 2009 9:50:19 GMT -5 bmartin said:

The Princeton offense is the most adaptable system there is. It isn't scripted. It can run. It can slow down. It can play big. It can play small. It merely requires players to play basketball in a way that is hard to defend. Players who don't want to learn how to dribble or pass or move without the ball are not as good as they think they are and should not be coddled.

bmartin... you are right on the money. It takes discipline, practice, understanding and team-first attitude. If you are too impatient, or too selfish, you won't do well and neither will the team. But once the team learns it, really deeply learns it so that it becomes second nature... then it will open up all kinds of possibilities and the team will look awesome once again.

Let's hope this new season will get us back on the trajectory JT3 established in his first four years!

[jgalt]

May 31, 2009 15:14:35 GMT -5 Dhall said:

Had last year's team played defense or rebounded on an average basis or better, nobody would be talking about the Princeton offense. When the team can't defend or rebound, the offense is also going to suffer no matter what system we're playing.

Absolutely. Win and no one criticizes how you did it. Lose and it has to be the system.

[guru]

No, we do not. Since JTIII took over, the program has achieved success at a level not seen in 20 years. One down season brings out all the Chicken Littles.

[NCHoya]

The team last year could have played any system and the result would have been the same. Nothing is going to solve bad chemistry and players with different agendas.

Given what I have heard Rivers say about our system, I give hime credit for being able to put that to the side while he was on the hilltop to play his role and achieve team success. The players on last year's team did not have this same ability. They had their way of playing and their own prupose and never adapted it to the team around them.

Princeton or not, the team was not going to win. I think this is fixed going into 2009. We lost some parts that were likely part of the problem and the remaining players demonstrated by staying that they are committed to seeing this through to success.

[the_way]

I think we make too much fuss about systems.

it comes down to players and the fundamentals of basketball.

if you got the players and the fundamentals, doesn't matter what system you run.

You got to recruit guys who are coachable and can play under you and adhere to what is being taught on and off the court. Now, that may seem simple. But it isn't. Recruiting isn't an exact science. Some kids pan out. Some don't. Some become more than expected. Some underachieve.

Georgetown has a narrower pool of kids than most schools to recruit from, because at G-town, education is important and kids have to actually go to class. So a lot of kids won't fit in to what we are trying to do.

We had a down year last year for a myriad of reasons. I think it was a learning experience for III as a recruiter, not as much as a coach.

As a coach, i think III is top notch. But as a recruiter, i think he learned what not to do and the type of kids he needs to bring into the program to sustain success based on the results of this year's team.

On paper based on the all-americans from high-school we had, we looked great, but on the court we looked like crap.

We we had our biggest success under III, we looked medicore on paper based on the hype of the kids we had in high school, but looked great on the court.

We gotta keep recruiting kids with the intangibles. We lacked the intangibles this year as a team.

[sleepy]

Jun 1, 2009 10:30:51 GMT -5 the_way said:

On paper based on the all-americans from high-school we had, we looked great, but on the court we looked like crap.

We we had our biggest success under III, we looked medicore on paper based on the hype of the kids we had in high school, but looked great on the court.

This is just nonsense, to base actual talent on highschool ratings unless you think JTIII bases in recruiting on the latest scout rankings. On paper the year we had our most success, we had three first round picks(if Dajuan goes in the first round) in our frontcourt with one of those being a top 5 pick based on proven skill. And we had a second round draft pick on the bench. That was our most talented team, on paper and on the court.
This year we had two nba draft picks, one in the lotto based on potential and playing in his first year against college competition and the other playing out of position. This team had a lot of potential talent, but for whatever reason it just didn't come together last year. But to say this team was better on paper is ludicrious.
Your comparing a very young team to a team led by five extremely talented and expierenced juniors. It makes no sense to say well, it must be because the all-americans just don't have the right intangibles, when infact they were lacking so much more. Why don't we just overthrow the whole team and go sign a bunch of two and three star recruits to replace them? Because obviously every underrated recruit is a Jeff Green, Roy Hibbert, Jonathon Wallace, and Patrick Ewing Jr, and the coaching staff had no hand in developing those players into what they became as a group.

[GIGAFAN99]

Here's a thought: what if defense and rebounding aren't intangibles?

We always act like they fall under some "toughness" and "heart" column. Jon Wallace has a lot of heart. Chris Wright is very tough and talented. But I bet you neither can play D like Jeremiah. Not because he's some hard-nosed guy from the streets either, but because he's freakin' good at it. Same can be said for Jason Clark who was highly-ranked but also very good on the boards and D out of the gate.

So I'm for us recruiting guys with the tangibles we don't have. End of the day, we went to the Final Four with three 1st-round draft picks in the starting frontcourt and a 2nd-rounder on the bench. But they also had different skill sets.

[PopeJohn2]

"sustainable" means top 15 ranking year in and year out (or nearly all) during the tenure of a coach (or line of coachs). see unc, duke, kansas, uconn, uk (pre-gillespie), ucla, etc.

i posit the princeton makes this difficult given that, given the number of transfers we have had, it is very difficult to find recruits that will:
a. be able to learn the system (some have said this would include most of iii's first recruits plus macklin)
b. have the skill set suited to the system (rdf has said this would include summers, see summers thread#1)
b. have the discipline to follow the system consistently (members of last years team?)
c. not be frustrated with the limitations, perceived or real, of the system, which may lead to attitude problems.

for all the cheerleaders of the princeton and the blaming of the players (and not the system) for our recent troubles, fact of the matter is that, a number of former players and pro scouts have criticized the system.

perhaps the success with green & co was the exception not the rule?

perhaps way is right about the recruiting side. i wonder if iii needs to modify the system even more so that more players can succeed at georgetown. you cant just put blinders on and say that it is always the players fault. the fact that so many players have not made it at georgetown warrants asking this question.

[RDF]

Jun 1, 2009 21:29:46 GMT -5 PopeJohn2 said:

"sustainable" means top 15 ranking year in and year out (or nearly all) during the tenure of a coach (or line of coachs). see unc, duke, kansas, uconn, uk (pre-gillespie), ucla, etc.

i posit the princeton makes this difficult given that, given the number of transfers we have had, it is very difficult to find recruits that will:
a. be able to learn the system (some have said this would include most of iii's first recruits plus macklin)
b. have the skill set suited to the system (rdf has said this would include summers, see summers thread#1)
b. have the discipline to follow the system consistently (members of last years team?)
c. not be frustrated with the limitations, perceived or real, of the system, which may lead to attitude problems.

for all the cheerleaders of the princeton and the blaming of the players (and not the system) for our recent troubles, fact of the matter is that, a number of former players and pro scouts have criticized the system.

perhaps the success with green & co was the exception not the rule?

perhaps way is right about the recruiting side. i wonder if iii needs to modify the system even more so that more players can succeed at georgetown. you cant just put blinders on and say that it is always the players fault. the fact that so many players have not made it at georgetown warrants asking this question.

The same pro scouts who compliment the job III did in player development? The same scouts who have taken guys from Georgetown in 1st Round 2 years in a row--and if Summers makes it --3?

If you look at the players "who havent' made it" at Georgetown--it had to do with BETTER TALENT coming in/taking their place. Who has left that was a tragic loss to the roster? I think Macklin would've been nice to have--but he's not assured of ever playing in the NBA and if you ever saw him play--he had no post game whatsoever entering Georgetown--he did when he departed.

So Thornton, Spann, Rivers, Macklin, Egerson, Giubunda, etc...were all "tragic losses" despite the fact the team with guys playing in front of them won 2 Big East championships, made 2 BET Championship games--winning 1, and made the Final Four. Yeah that III and his "system" are idiotic.

[tpk3]

Jun 1, 2009 23:29:35 GMT -5 RDF said:

Jun 1, 2009 21:29:46 GMT -5 PopeJohn2 said:

"sustainable" means top 15 ranking year in and year out (or nearly all) during the tenure of a coach (or line of coachs). see unc, duke, kansas, uconn, uk (pre-gillespie), ucla, etc.

i posit the princeton makes this difficult given that, given the number of transfers we have had, it is very difficult to find recruits that will:
a. be able to learn the system (some have said this would include most of iii's first recruits plus macklin)
b. have the skill set suited to the system (rdf has said this would include summers, see summers thread#1)
b. have the discipline to follow the system consistently (members of last years team?)
c. not be frustrated with the limitations, perceived or real, of the system, which may lead to attitude problems.

for all the cheerleaders of the princeton and the blaming of the players (and not the system) for our recent troubles, fact of the matter is that, a number of former players and pro scouts have criticized the system.

perhaps the success with green & co was the exception not the rule?

perhaps way is right about the recruiting side. i wonder if iii needs to modify the system even more so that more players can succeed at georgetown. you cant just put blinders on and say that it is always the players fault. the fact that so many players have not made it at georgetown warrants asking this question.

The same pro scouts who compliment the job III did in player development? The same scouts who have taken guys from Georgetown in 1st Round 2 years in a row--and if Summers makes it --3?

If you look at the players "who havent' made it" at Georgetown--it had to do with BETTER TALENT coming in/taking their place. Who has left that was a tragic loss to the roster? I think Macklin would've been nice to have--but he's not assured of ever playing in the NBA and if you ever saw him play--he had no post game whatsoever entering Georgetown--he did when he departed.

So Thornton, Spann, Rivers, Macklin, Egerson, Giubunda, etc...were all "tragic losses" despite the fact the team with guys playing in front of them won 2 Big East championships, made 2 BET Championship games--winning 1, and made the Final Four. Yeah that III and his "system" are idiotic.

latavius ain't walking through that door no matter how much you it disappoints you. Perhaps you should become a memphis fan.

[PopeJohn2]

Jun 1, 2009 23:29:35 GMT -5 RDF said:

Jun 1, 2009 21:29:46 GMT -5 PopeJohn2 said:

"sustainable" means top 15 ranking year in and year out (or nearly all) during the tenure of a coach (or line of coachs). see unc, duke, kansas, uconn, uk (pre-gillespie), ucla, etc.

i posit the princeton makes this difficult given that, given the number of transfers we have had, it is very difficult to find recruits that will:
a. be able to learn the system (some have said this would include most of iii's first recruits plus macklin)
b. have the skill set suited to the system (rdf has said this would include summers, see summers thread#1)
b. have the discipline to follow the system consistently (members of last years team?)
c. not be frustrated with the limitations, perceived or real, of the system, which may lead to attitude problems.

for all the cheerleaders of the princeton and the blaming of the players (and not the system) for our recent troubles, fact of the matter is that, a number of former players and pro scouts have criticized the system.

perhaps the success with green & co was the exception not the rule?

perhaps way is right about the recruiting side. i wonder if iii needs to modify the system even more so that more players can succeed at georgetown. you cant just put blinders on and say that it is always the players fault. the fact that so many players have not made it at georgetown warrants asking this question.

The same pro scouts who compliment the job III did in player development? The same scouts who have taken guys from Georgetown in 1st Round 2 years in a row--and if Summers makes it --3?

If you look at the players "who havent' made it" at Georgetown--it had to do with BETTER TALENT coming in/taking their place. Who has left that was a tragic loss to the roster? I think Macklin would've been nice to have--but he's not assured of ever playing in the NBA and if you ever saw him play--he had no post game whatsoever entering Georgetown--he did when he departed.

So Thornton, Spann, Rivers, Macklin, Egerson, Giubunda, etc...were all "tragic losses" despite the fact the team with guys playing in front of them won 2 Big East championships, made 2 BET Championship games--winning 1, and made the Final Four. Yeah that III and his "system" are idiotic.

boy you are defensive.

i would say so many transfers are an indication of something. macklin was an especially big loss and likely cost us an ncaa bid. (yes i know you disagree and it makes your blood boil to even suggest it.) doesnt seem summers leaving is all roses either. who exactly is the "better talent" that we were replacing macklin and summers with. vaughn benimon?

the loss of the players you are putting down did mean we have had very little depth coming off the bench and have only been able to go at most 5-7 deep. the drop off from #5 to #7 or even #6 has been substantial at times.

but not to get off topic, what i am proposing is that the failure of so many players may be a sign of something, at the very least the difficulty identifying players that will be able to not fail.

consider if so many players had to leave early because of academic problems, then i think no one would deny that we would have to be more considerate in considering the academic aptitude of our recruits. same goes here. im saying that the princeton seems a more demanding, less forgiving system as far as recruiting goes.

[sleepy]

Jun 1, 2009 19:06:12 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

Here's a thought: what if defense and rebounding aren't intangibles?

We always act like they fall under some "toughness" and "heart" column. Jon Wallace has a lot of heart. Chris Wright is very tough and talented. But I bet you neither can play D like Jeremiah. Not because he's some hard-nosed guy from the streets either, but because he's freakin' good at it. Same can be said for Jason Clark who was highly-ranked but also very good on the boards and D out of the gate.

So I'm for us recruiting guys with the tangibles we don't have. End of the day, we went to the Final Four with three 1st-round draft picks in the starting frontcourt and a 2nd-rounder on the bench. But they also had different skill sets.

I think the problem was a combination of "intangibles" and and skill level. My intangibles I mean chemistry, leadership, etc. etc. Our players have a lot the need to improve in individually, offensively and defensively. There is no denying that. But we had a high enough skillset last year to finish higher than we did. If we had better chemistry, and were able to harness eachothers strengths and cover our weaknesses better, we would have been a much better team. On the other hand, chemistry and leadership wouldn't have been as important if we didn't have so many weaknesses we needed to hide. To be a great team, however, we need to improve both.

We don't need to recruit guys with more "tangibles" than the guys we have now. We need to develop the players we have. Just like we developed the final four team into the players they became. They didn't come in the same players that left, and thats something everyone seems to be forgetting.

[bigelephant]

Aside from the arguments about the PO - does the coach have any responsibilty for lack of chemistry and leadership? If everything is on the players in last year's fiasco - when and where does the coach bear responsibility if any?