bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jul 26, 2010 20:09:34 GMT -5
It wasn't bigs that we couldn't defend. It was perimeter slashers with jumpers like USF Jones, RU Mitchell, SU Johnson, WVU Butler, and the Ohio guards.
We had more trouble with 1's, 2's, and 3's than with 4's and 5's.
|
|
gujake
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 831
|
Post by gujake on Jul 26, 2010 20:28:14 GMT -5
This is not my point, or even concern. My concern is going small is the right decision. Yes, III has shown some tendencies to play too small. But it's really problematic if we're playing small, and it's the right decision. Because we'll never be all that good playing Hollis at the 4, IMO. Hey SF - Looking forward to your analysis, but I don't think there's any way it could be the right decision, and it may be somewhat difficult to try to quantify it. I think there's a good argument that playing with a big lineup as your default lineup creates a situation where you have a much better chance to IMPROVE your defense over the course of the season. My theory could be wrong, but I think with a small lineup you're much less likely to improve throughout the year. And smaller lineups must almost certainly have a lower ceiling. For example, let's take two scenarios. In Scenario 1, our starting lineup throughout the year is Wright-Clark-Freeman-Thompson-Vaughn (WCFTV) and they tend to play the most minutes as usual. And, in Scenario 2, our starting lineup throughout the year is Wright-Clark-Freeman-Sims-Vaughn (WCFSV). If we look at the lineup efficiencies at the end of the year in Scenario 1, it may very well be the case that WCFTV is more efficient then WCFSV. However, I would bet very strongly that if the default starting lineup from day one is WCFSV, that the opposite would be true as well and that they would be more efficient than WCFTV.... AND I would bet that WCFSV from scenario 2 would outperform WCFTV from scenario 1, and would have a better probability of giving us a top 10 team.
|
|
|
Post by gtowndynasty on Jul 27, 2010 8:15:57 GMT -5
This is not my point, or even concern. My concern is going small is the right decision. Yes, III has shown some tendencies to play too small. But it's really problematic if we're playing small, and it's the right decision. Because we'll never be all that good playing Hollis at the 4, IMO. Hey SF - Looking forward to your analysis, but I don't think there's any way it could be the right decision, and it may be somewhat difficult to try to quantify it. I think there's a good argument that playing with a big lineup as your default lineup creates a situation where you have a much better chance to IMPROVE your defense over the course of the season. My theory could be wrong, but I think with a small lineup you're much less likely to improve throughout the year. And smaller lineups must almost certainly have a lower ceiling. For example, let's take two scenarios. In Scenario 1, our starting lineup throughout the year is Wright-Clark-Freeman-Thompson-Vaughn (WCFTV) and they tend to play the most minutes as usual. And, in Scenario 2, our starting lineup throughout the year is Wright-Clark-Freeman-Sims-Vaughn (WCFSV). If we look at the lineup efficiencies at the end of the year in Scenario 1, it may very well be the case that WCFTV is more efficient then WCFSV. However, I would bet very strongly that if the default starting lineup from day one is WCFSV, that the opposite would be true as well and that they would be more efficient than WCFTV.... AND I would bet that WCFSV from scenario 2 would outperform WCFTV from scenario 1, and would have a better probability of giving us a top 10 team. I thought when people were clamoring for the "BIG" lineup, it wasnt a Julian/Nate or Henry/Austin/Jason/Chris thing, but instead a Julian/Nate or Henry/Hollis/Austin/Chris thing. You are comparing the wrong lineups imo. In the two scenarios you compared, I dont think either are as effective as a Julian/Nate/Hollis/Austin/Chris lineup. Ive been following Hollis very closely and what I have noticed is that he is great at giving you one of those games where he plays to his potential and with a confidence that you leave saying this kid needs to start and be a big part of what we are trying to do. But he does not do it consistently. For instance, last year after the LaFayette (i think) game where he had a great game everyone thought he turned the corner. Then he strung together some really bad games, and then a good one, then some bad ones. Then he had a good game in the Tourney against Ohio but couldnt build on it because we lost. Basically, right now we know what we will get from Jason. He can be counted on for that. On the other hand, with Hollis we dont know. He might give us 15 points and 6 rebs on Monday, but on Sat give us 4 points and 2 rebs. I firmly believe he will get to that point where he is consistent, but I just hope its sooner than later. If he plays to his full potential and is confident, I think he can give us 12ppg, 4-5rpg, 2-3apg, and another long body in there near the rim playing alongside Julian and Nate/Henry.
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Jul 27, 2010 8:43:58 GMT -5
In my opinion, what I want out of this year in terms of bigs vs. smalls is flexibility. This is the first year our depth is impressive, and I think it would be good to use that. When we play teams with only 1 real big and everyone else is essentially a perimeter guy, I wouldn't mind seeing Hollis at the 4. Because we have so much backcourt depth, I'm assuming we really get into the chest of opposing guards and do a better job of keeping them from getting ot the paint off the bounce. On the other hand, when we play a Cuse or WVU where rebounding is at a premium, go big for large stretches of the game, cycling in all 4 of our big bodies and using Hollis at the 3. As long as we use our depth this year, I think we can make due playing a combo of big and small as the matchups dictate.
Now a big issue for me in us going small is can Julian rebound the way that Greg did.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jul 27, 2010 9:13:40 GMT -5
My theoretical, ideal line up assuming everyone in the line up plays up to their potential: Chris Austin Hollis Nate Julian
With Jason 1st of the bench, Henry 2nd off the bench, and Vee, Markel, Moses getting minutes as situation dictates.
|
|
|
Post by gtowndynasty on Jul 27, 2010 9:21:44 GMT -5
My theoretical, ideal line up assuming everyone in the line up plays up to their potential: Chris Austin Hollis Nate Julian With Jason 1st of the bench, Henry 2nd off the bench, and Vee, Markel, Moses getting minutes as situation dictates. Agree 100% HSB, but the caveat of playing to potential cant be overstated as it is the KEY to that lineup working. I do disagree with the shifting of the starting lineup depending on who we are playing. We should have a starting 5 and stick to it to the extent injuries and other nonbasketball factors allow us to. If we match up with a team with a smaller 4, lets bang them on the boards, offensively and defensively. In college basketball, I just dont see many 4s that are going to be raining threes on our heads.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,795
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 27, 2010 9:28:05 GMT -5
This is the first year our depth is impressive Gotta love the summer.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,795
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 27, 2010 9:31:47 GMT -5
This is not my point, or even concern. My concern is going small is the right decision. Yes, III has shown some tendencies to play too small. But it's really problematic if we're playing small, and it's the right decision. Because we'll never be all that good playing Hollis at the 4, IMO. Hey SF - Looking forward to your analysis, but I don't think there's any way it could be the right decision, and it may be somewhat difficult to try to quantify it. I think there's a good argument that playing with a big lineup as your default lineup creates a situation where you have a much better chance to IMPROVE your defense over the course of the season. My theory could be wrong, but I think with a small lineup you're much less likely to improve throughout the year. And smaller lineups must almost certainly have a lower ceiling. For example, let's take two scenarios. In Scenario 1, our starting lineup throughout the year is Wright-Clark-Freeman-Thompson-Vaughn (WCFTV) and they tend to play the most minutes as usual. And, in Scenario 2, our starting lineup throughout the year is Wright-Clark-Freeman-Sims-Vaughn (WCFSV). If we look at the lineup efficiencies at the end of the year in Scenario 1, it may very well be the case that WCFTV is more efficient then WCFSV. However, I would bet very strongly that if the default starting lineup from day one is WCFSV, that the opposite would be true as well and that they would be more efficient than WCFTV.... AND I would bet that WCFSV from scenario 2 would outperform WCFTV from scenario 1, and would have a better probability of giving us a top 10 team. Jake, I don't really think it is going to be analysis, really, and you're certainly right that it's difficult or impossible to prove. Much like you, I'm basically going off educated logic. But it's mostly rooted in the idea that Julian Vaughn, while not necessarily a better PF than Jason Clark is a SG/SF, is close enough that the advantages of having two bigs on the floor meant a better lineup next year. Julian was no slouch; I just think Clark was better. And I happen to think the gap between the big and the small is going to be bigger this year, because it's either a junior who's shown little more than flashes (though admittedly that was Julian last year) or freshmen. Anywho, I'll post sooner or later.
|
|
2ndRyan
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 330
|
Post by 2ndRyan on Jul 27, 2010 12:34:36 GMT -5
Made my annual pilgrimmage south to see Kenner action Sunday. I was coming off a year hiatus due to the abbreviated schedule last year.
Somewhat of a twist this year. Whole family came as they were staying on to tour DC for three more days. I headed back on storm delayed Amtrak to clock in Monday am at the mine. Call me the Enabler.
As per Custom we broke our travel in Maryland at a Waffle House. No All-Star breakfast for me this year. Getting older and calorie conscious sucks. Still made room for the raisin toast and the hashbrowns (scattered and peppered).
After reading other accounts of the first two games I find myself with little to add.
Nate- very quick and a nose for the ball. Looked good rebounding. His strip of Morrison on his way to the basket was indeed a noteworthy play.
Moses- big and immovable when he wants to be. If he could develop some finsihing moves around the basket he could contribute.
Markel- a couple of nice mid-range jumpers. It's a nice to see a young player who doesn't think the only shot inside the three point arc is a lay-up.
Glad we got there in time for the first game. Jason Clark is really fun to watch.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,743
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jul 27, 2010 12:49:38 GMT -5
My theoretical, ideal line up assuming everyone in the line up plays up to their potential: Chris Austin Hollis Nate Julian With Jason 1st of the bench, Henry 2nd off the bench, and Vee, Markel, Moses getting minutes as situation dictates. I don't think there's any chance that Clark comes off the bench. At worst, he's the 3rd best player on the team and probably the best defender. To me, there's one starting spot up for grabs - the 4 position, between Thompson, Lubick and Sims. My guess is Lubick gets the call when it's all said and done.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 27, 2010 13:14:50 GMT -5
Let's see, Jason makes a great leap from his frosh to his soph year, becomes a dependable 3-point threat, is the better of all the guards on defense, improves his handle immensely and we take him out of the starting lineup as he goes into the year he hopes to establish himself as an NBA prospect? Then, after Chris and Austin have departed next year we bring him back into a starting role? Hate to be playing for you as a coach.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jul 27, 2010 13:28:26 GMT -5
I agree with ed - no way in the world Jason isn't starting. You put your best players on the floor.
That said, I want to see more from Jason on defense and on the boards. He is a great athlete and has those go-go gadget arms - time to use them. He won't be the principle ball handler so long as Chris and Austin are here, so I want him to make an impact doing more than just shooting the three and scoring on back cuts. I thought he wore down as the season went on last year, but I expect big things.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jul 27, 2010 13:51:05 GMT -5
You put the 5 people on the court that give you the best chance of winning the games. If we can put a true 1,2,3,4,5 on the court instead of the 1,2,2,3,5 that we've put out there at times that people are suggesting would be our best line up, I think we'd be better off. I'm not saying we will be able to, but I'm hoping we can.
|
|
BigmanU
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 915
|
Post by BigmanU on Jul 27, 2010 14:02:30 GMT -5
You put the 5 people on the court that give you the best chance of winning the games. If we can put a true 1,2,3,4,5 on the court instead of the 1,2,2,3,5 that we've put out there at times that people are suggesting would be our best line up, I think we'd be better off. I'm not saying we will be able to, but I'm hoping we can. +1 Hopefully we can blend the pieces together and form a strong rotation regardless who starts.
|
|
|
Post by gtowndynasty on Jul 27, 2010 14:08:18 GMT -5
You put the 5 people on the court that give you the best chance of winning the games. If we can put a true 1,2,3,4,5 on the court instead of the 1,2,2,3,5 that we've put out there at times that people are suggesting would be our best line up, I think we'd be better off. I'm not saying we will be able to, but I'm hoping we can. +1 Hopefully we can blend the pieces together and form a strong rotation regardless who starts. +1000. I mean nobody is saying JC is not one of the 5 best players on the team. I think anybody who knows anything about ball can acknowledge that, but it is about putting the 5 best guys on the floor than can get the job done, and as HSB pointed out it is best to have a true lineup with a 1/2/3/4/5. Query whether Lamar Odom is better than Andrew Bynum. But he comes off the bench for the good of the team. Or whether Jamal Crawford is better than Marvin Williams and/or Mike Bibby. Jesse Sapp had to do it. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and take one for the team. Unfortunately for JC, he is in position to have to take that one. Not saying he will definitely be taken out of the starting lineup, but there is an argument that this is what should be done..
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,431
|
Post by prhoya on Jul 27, 2010 14:11:08 GMT -5
No way Jason doesn't start. I'm hoping for another big off-season leap from him. But, again, JT3 should use the excellent guard depth and Hollis and Nate to apply pressure all over the court, but at the same time keep fresh legs. IMO, we've had players with tired (although young) legs in March.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 27, 2010 14:28:53 GMT -5
You also realize you don't have that great of a team if they haven't accomplished anything? I mean we've got guys who are proven to be excellent offensive players--and nobody can guard individually or well as a team--the team's best player and rebounder is gone--and he was stuck being one of the few big men--and halfcourt facilitator for the offense in the "small ball system" which produced nothing of significance.
GREAT players impact games without needing to score. Who is a great player on this team? Now if you want to talk about great scorers/offensive players--although it can be argued that nobody on this team gets others going--the returning players are all individual scorers--we'll see how they do this year without the halfcourt "point" gone--which was Monroe--offense ran through him. Maybe they'll shine--maybe they'll run more--which is what I would do with this group--because I think the returning team is weak in halfcourt setting--and defensively I would play whomever is committed to playing defense and not just looking like they are--until someone makes one move/takes a dribble and then proceeds to walk around them like they are standing in cement.
Just terrified the Head Coach is on record saying Jason Clark is best defender on team--because potential and achievement are two different things. Agree if you are talking potential and laugh if he's talking about actually achieving great defense in a game. Either that or standard for what is "great defense" needs to be explained to me--because the definition sure has changed.
Small Ball is FAIL and again-show me any method you want to examine the results of a team's success and it's proven to have failed for this program.
Ignorance to me is repeating the same scenario repeatedly when you know it won't be successful--and have proven it with a different approach in past and had success. Which in reality makes it more of an arrogant approach. Of course I also believe in adjusting systems to fit personnel and not forcing something on players--but that's why I'm a fan and not a coach--or that is why so many coaches wonder why a good group of players doesn't "get it" as often happens in all sports.
|
|
idhoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,177
|
Post by idhoya on Jul 27, 2010 14:41:52 GMT -5
Your guard rotation should be CW, AF, JC, MS, VS-limited. Small forwards-Hollis, AF, Bowen. PF/C-HS, NL, JV, JB, MA. No reason Hoyas can't at least go 9 deep this, maybe 10 depending on who reponds. If HS wakes up then definitely 10.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Jul 27, 2010 17:05:19 GMT -5
Your guard rotation should be CW, AF, JC, MS, VS-limited. Small forwards-Hollis, AF, Bowen. PF/C-HS, NL, JV, JB, MA. No reason Hoyas can't at least go 9 deep this, maybe 10 depending on who reponds. If HS wakes up then definitely 10. Agreed, there should really be 3 rotations. Not sure if Bowen is ready for prime time, even though he has played well in Kenner and I would also include JB in the SF rotation at times. I know JC should get MAJOR minutes because he is one of our best players but JTIII should try to avoid playing a 1, 2, 2, 3/4, 5 line-up. Coach is smart enough to find a a way to get those three major minutes while still filling the rest of our roles with the depth!
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 27, 2010 17:09:13 GMT -5
Your guard rotation should be CW, AF, JC, MS, VS-limited. Small forwards-Hollis, AF, Bowen. PF/C-HS, NL, JV, JB, MA. No reason Hoyas can't at least go 9 deep this, maybe 10 depending on who reponds. If HS wakes up then definitely 10. Agreed, there should really be 3 rotations. Not sure if Bowen is ready for prime time, even though he has played well in Kenner and I would also include JB in the SF rotation at times. I know JC should get MAJOR minutes because he is one of our best players but JTIII should try to avoid playing a 1, 2, 2, 3/4, 5 line-up. Coach is smart enough to find a a way to get those three major minutes while still filling the rest of our roles with the depth! I'd like to think so too Hometown--but 2 years in a row of something that has been an utter disaster, who knows? When you keep going to a place that you know is going to get held up--is it the robber's fault or your own?
|
|