EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 27, 2010 18:29:51 GMT -5
Everybody talks about the need for defense, that we'll score but not be able to defend. Despite tailing off at the end of last season, Jason was our best defensive 1/2/3 last year. Following the reason that we need more defense, it makes no sense to demote the best defensive 1/2/3 who can also score. Why not, then, bring Austin off the bench since he's primarily an offensive player? I know no one wants that, including me, but just wanted to say that taking one person off the starting lineup does not necessarily mean Jason. Since small has been bad, Chris and Austin are smaller than Jason, particularly with his long arms.
In 2011/2012 Jason will be our star so let's develop him as a full-time starter.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jul 27, 2010 18:53:46 GMT -5
If it came down between Jason coming off the bench or Austin doing so, then I'll go with the former. Austin was arguably the best player on last season's team and the most consistent guy too until his diabetes got the best of him. Just look at his performance against Louisville. You could tell he didn't look "right" in that game during the first half either but he still saved Gtown by exploding in the second half. Less than a week later it is revealed he has diabetes. If it wasn't for that development who knows just how far the Hoyas could have gone because Austin was on fire. But after we learned of his condition he only had one more great game in him which was against Cincy. Now he is back in good health and from all reports is looking better than ever. He has been a starter for three seasons and is one of the top candidates for BE Player of the Year. And you're suggesting that perhaps Austin should be considered as the guy to come off the bench? I love Jason but that's crazy.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 27, 2010 19:08:54 GMT -5
MCI, I agree bringing Austin off the bench would be crazy. I also believe bringing Jason off the bench would be crazy.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 27, 2010 19:16:38 GMT -5
MCI, I agree bringing Austin off the bench would be crazy. I also believe bringing Jason off the bench would be crazy. Let's start 12 guys - bring no one off the bench.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,293
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jul 27, 2010 20:00:05 GMT -5
"until someone makes one move/takes a dribble and then proceeds to walk around them like they are standing in cement. "
RDF, I'm much older than you, how did you know about the hoyarooter method of playing defense? Of course, I couldn't help myself. That's the problem with wearing cement shoes.
This is indeed a quandary. Jason is/should be our best defensive guard. But I totally agree that I want to see a 1/2/3/4/5 line-up, not a 1/2/2/3/5. And that would mean Jason coming off the bench. The problem is that the personnel may not accommodate our wish for a normal line-up, at least not unless Nate proves to be starter material, and that doesn't seem to be the case yet based on Kenner comments.
Also LMAO at the 12 starter suggestion.
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Jul 27, 2010 21:03:35 GMT -5
Ok fair point. Very little of our depth is proven. But I guess what I meant (and should have said) was that this is the first year I think we're deep to the point that the sheer numbers of depth is an advantage, leaving aside how good some of the pieces are. And I mean that as both a positive and negative. We have a lot of talented players, especially at the guard spots, so we should be able to use it to our advantage. But, in another way, I want us to use our depth because we're so very unproven at a lot of spots. Last year, there was a steep fall off from the top 5. If you ran Henry out there for 15 minutes a game, that was a big loss from 15 minutes of Julian or Greg. But this year, there's minutes to be had, and it's very unclear to what extent 15 minutes of Henry, Nate, Moses, or Hollis/Jerrelle (at the 4) will differ. So as long as the distinction between those guys, at least when playing at those positions, is not so great, I wouldn't mind seeing us play more guys just to utilize some of that energy in short bursts. I'm not normally a depth for depth's sake guy, but I think there's some benefit to it this year---at least in the frontcourt.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jul 27, 2010 21:17:28 GMT -5
easyed i can't let the statement about JC being the best 1,2or 3 go without commenting. I love his offense and the improvement he has made with his hanle to the point that we ran some decent sets last year with him on the ball and CW playing off it. Ill also give you that Jason of the ball is very solid with deflections steals and hustle play which are a real positive.
In My opinion he is by far the worst on ball defender on this team. Jason may be fast but shows not lateral quicks. primarily because he has beyond terrible defensive fundamentals, body hands and feet. 2 seasons in and he is still chasing not sliding laterally. and im still waiting for him to make a decision and either go over or under a pick. Both chris and austin neither of whom will ever be confused with gene smith as defenders, have at a minimum great defensive fundamentals and do a decent job of defending the ball. though i don't think they are commited to it on every posession Even in games or 1/2s that we played well defensively i still have memories of Sosa and Rautins blowing by JC to get in the lane at will. at times. JC is much more effective when we play in the matchup zone which to me has become more of our signature defense despite the fact that we did not play it very effectively last year. again just one mans opinion and my primary reason for believing that this team will be more effective with Hollis getting a lot more time at the 3.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jul 27, 2010 21:57:52 GMT -5
We're likely to play small unless someone forces the issue (Henry, Nate or Moses). Talent, history, coaching preference, etc., all lean that way. Since you're here ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I thought the Hoya Prospectus post from a few month's ago was a well thought out examination of this issue, with all the appropriate caveats. hoyaprospectus.blogspot.com/2010/04/size-really-does-matter.htmlAs for where I stand on the issue, I tend to agree with the conclusions in the final portion. Perhaps because of the way I think, I found myself most attracted to the sentences ending in question marks. Quite a lot of those. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
mapei
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by mapei on Jul 27, 2010 22:07:31 GMT -5
The problem with playing a 1/2/3/4/5 team is that our recruiting hasn't produced bigs that can play the 4 or 5 this season at an NCAA level, except for Julian. I'd love to play a true 4, but we. don't. have. one. If Henry or Nate can step up and JV can stay out of foul trouble, we may be able to cover our deficiencies some. But we will need some luck to hit on 2 out of those 3 ifs. There's a possibility we'll miss on all 3.
Maybe the real issue is that you don't lose a Greg Monroe without incurring some problems trying to replace him.
I don't agree that last year was a complete disaster. We crashed in the NCAA tournament, true, but we had a winning record in the country's toughest conference even with Austin largely MIA for the last few games because of illness. We were ranked #14 at the end of the season. That's not a complete disaster in my book. And we may not improve on that this year, though the conference will be weaker and we should. But if we don't improve much it will be not because III isn't playing the right guys but because he doesn't have the right guys.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jul 28, 2010 4:32:26 GMT -5
The problem with playing a 1/2/3/4/5 team is that our recruiting hasn't produced bigs that can play the 4 or 5 this season at an NCAA level, except for Julian. . Goodness. You know Duke was recruiting nothing but All Americans and yet one could argue its 4s and 5s weren't capable of playing at an "NCAA level" or whatever either. But K kept them on the floor despite how ineffective they were. And guess what? After a while those bigs got good enough to not get in the way of Duke's perimeter players. And later those bigs got good enough to actually contribute in a positive way. And, oh yeah, Duke won the championship. But that title wouldn't have been achieved unless K put his big man out there on the floor enough and allowed them to find their way. It didn't matter if they looked lost so much throughout their careers or that it took them time to grasp how to play Duke's system. What mattered was they got run because even K realized playing Singler at the four for most minutes wasn't going to do his team much good during tournament time.
|
|
|
Post by bigelephant on Jul 28, 2010 6:24:39 GMT -5
"But K kept them on the floor despite how ineffective they were. And guess what? After a while those bigs got good enough to not get in the way of Duke's perimeter players. And later those bigs got good enough to actually contribute in a positive way. And, oh yeah, Duke won the championship. "
MCI - this is what we should be doing - Agree 100%
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,440
|
Post by lichoya68 on Jul 28, 2010 7:15:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gtowndynasty on Jul 28, 2010 11:03:48 GMT -5
The problem with playing a 1/2/3/4/5 team is that our recruiting hasn't produced bigs that can play the 4 or 5 this season at an NCAA level, except for Julian. . Goodness. You know Duke was recruiting nothing but All Americans and yet one could argue its 4s and 5s weren't capable of playing at an "NCAA level" or whatever either. But K kept them on the floor despite how ineffective they were. And guess what? After a while those bigs got good enough to not get in the way of Duke's perimeter players. And later those bigs got good enough to actually contribute in a positive way. And, oh yeah, Duke won the championship. But that title wouldn't have been achieved unless K put his big man out there on the floor enough and allowed them to find their way. It didn't matter if they looked lost so much throughout their careers or that it took them time to grasp how to play Duke's system. What mattered was they got run because even K realized playing Singler at the four for most minutes wasn't going to do his team much good during tournament time. That is an excellent point. I wish I had thought of it, but that is so true. Duke's bigs sucked when we played them, but they kept improving to the point that they became very good by season's end. We have to keep guys out there, especially in the early part of the season and let them find their way. If we take a loss in November to a team we should have beat, so be it if that means guys are getting seasoned and better prepared for february/march. That i think is the BIG picture.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,068
|
Post by EtomicB on Jul 28, 2010 12:06:24 GMT -5
The problem with playing a 1/2/3/4/5 team is that our recruiting hasn't produced bigs that can play the 4 or 5 this season at an NCAA level, except for Julian. . Goodness. You know Duke was recruiting nothing but All Americans and yet one could argue its 4s and 5s weren't capable of playing at an "NCAA level" or whatever either. But K kept them on the floor despite how ineffective they were. And guess what? After a while those bigs got good enough to not get in the way of Duke's perimeter players. And later those bigs got good enough to actually contribute in a positive way. And, oh yeah, Duke won the championship. But that title wouldn't have been achieved unless K put his big man out there on the floor enough and allowed them to find their way. It didn't matter if they looked lost so much throughout their careers or that it took them time to grasp how to play Duke's system. What mattered was they got run because even K realized playing Singler at the four for most minutes wasn't going to do his team much good during tournament time. Yeah but Duke had their 1, 2 ,3, 4 & 5 already established(especially the 1,2 & 3) which is much different than what's being debated in this thread. To me it's not that big of a deal for Coach K to play Zoubek, Thomas, Plumlee or Kelly even because his teams foundation was in place. Coack K also had a good sized foundation with a 6-5 pg in Scheyer and a 6-8 sf in Singler. This is not the case for G'town who's established trio is a well talked about 1,2 & 2 and who's sizes are 6-1, 6-2 and 6-4. I think the debate should be about small or big rotation not small or big ball which is gonna be inevitable this year. If the starting lineup is CW, AF, HT, HS/NL & JV who will JC sub in for 1st? If it's HT the team is small again or if it's for HS/NL then they're even smaller right? Not to mention JC will play more minutes per game than anyone on the team save for CW and AF so whether he starts or not the team primarily will be "smaller" Also playing "bigger" will mean less time on the floor for guys like VS and MS. I think 3 needs to fight his urge to feel "comfortable" with who he has on the floor and allow others to enter his comfort zone so he can play more people. I think he should start this from game 1 and hopefully by mid Feb he has an effective 8-9 man rotation going well.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,795
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 28, 2010 13:35:38 GMT -5
Not that I don't think that we should play big, but my quibbles with the "Duke" argument:
1. Zoubek was a senior, 7', McD's AA. When we talk about the Hoyas and doing the same thing, we've got a bunch of 50-100 ranked guys, and two of them freshmen. Zoubek had thousands more practice hours than these guys.
2. Which brings me to my second point. I do not doubt game time brings something different than practice, but there's always this weird assumption out there that most or all development occurs in the game rather than out of game. Did Zoubek develop in games? Or out of games and earn more PT in practice and it simply showed up in games because you don't see practice as a fan.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 28, 2010 14:43:48 GMT -5
Ignore the "McDonalds" crap when it comes to Duke and UNC--if you sign with them--more often then not-you make that game--see Neil Fingleton, Lee Melchioni, etc....and it's an embarrasment by the "selection" committee. Zoubek didn't quit/transfer and that should be applauded--but it also should be respected that Duke doesn't give up on a guy because he didn't do much prior to his last season-it's why you don't give up on guys--and it's what can happen when a player accepts a role on a team and doesn't worry about "stardom".
Georgetown had more talent then Duke last year--and it showed when they played--the Hoyas were quicker, better offensive players, and just a more talented team--problem is--they didn't understand the need to up their level--they'd settle for a great game and looked at who they beat--instead of the concept that championship teams do--which is to keep pushing to improve until you hit March--and hit your peak then. Duke did.
Guys accepted roles--and more importantly they view every game as important. Biggest compliment I give Duke's program--they might lose games but I can't remember when you see them not ready to play or not giving maximum effort--they can lose to better teams, get outplayed, not shoot well but they'll get after it and not take teams lightly--which Hoyas team which hasn't accomplished anything doesn't understand--for some reason??
Georgetown program I've followed majority of my time as a fan is similar but the past 2 years just isn't the case--these guys take games off, don't focus, don't accept a role or understand how important a role is--it's about scoring/playing offense and trying to outscore people. That doesn't get it done. Duke also had a big team--they went very tall across the board and it's more support for those of us who have pointed out how important/much of an advantage that talented size can be over the long haul of a season--see III's team '06-'08.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jul 28, 2010 20:52:26 GMT -5
Not that I don't think that we should play big, but my quibbles with the "Duke" argument: 1. Zoubek was a senior, 7', McD's AA. When we talk about the Hoyas and doing the same thing, we've got a bunch of 50-100 ranked guys, and two of them freshmen. . Other than the senior part what does this have to do with this argument? Just because he was a McDAA makes him automatically better than guys who were ranked in the lower half of the top 100? You do realize that Z sucked for 3 and a half years so his McDAA label didn't mean squat. Also Duke is one of those programs that gets its recruits "bumps" in the ratings. A guy in the top 50 who signs with Duke is almost automatic to get a McDAA invite. But regardless of that Zoubek's two inch height advantage and his inflated ranking doesn't make him a player more worthy of getting a chance to prove himself when compared to the Hoya big men in question. And getting back to Zoubek being a senior let me point out that by the time, say, Henry is a senior perhaps he could give the Hoyas a similiar production. But to do this he will have to get regular playing time as a junior...like Zoubek got.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jul 28, 2010 20:58:15 GMT -5
This is not the case for G'town who's established trio is a well talked about 1,2 & 2 and who's sizes are 6-1, 6-2 and 6-4. Ummm...isn't that why we are talking about starting Hollis at the three and playing legit big men at the four and five? That's the whole point. Who cares about establsihed trios? Heck, Nolan wasn't even that proven a player for Duke until last season anyway.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,068
|
Post by EtomicB on Jul 28, 2010 22:24:56 GMT -5
This is not the case for G'town who's established trio is a well talked about 1,2 & 2 and who's sizes are 6-1, 6-2 and 6-4. Ummm...isn't that why we are talking about starting Hollis at the three and playing legit big men at the four and five? That's the whole point. Who cares about establsihed trios? Heck, Nolan wasn't even that proven a player for Duke until last season anyway. MCI, a big part of the discussion has to do with whether it's better for the team to start a bigger but less established HT at the 3 instead of a smaller but more established JC. My point was Duke didn't have to ponder this type of issue this year because Schyer, Smith and Singler were always slated to start. What does it matter that Smith didn't become proven until last year? He was proven enough the previous season to send Paulus to the bench. K was going to play him regardless until he either got it or completely flamed out. So playing a 6-8 Thomas at the 4 and a 7ft Zoubek at the 5 was an easy decison for coach K. However starting Hollis and HS/NL will be a very tough choice for JT3
|
|
|
Post by bigelephant on Jul 29, 2010 6:56:26 GMT -5
EtomicB wrote: "I think 3 needs to fight his urge to feel "comfortable" with who he has on the floor and allow others to enter his comfort zone so he can play more people. I think he should start this from game 1 and hopefully by mid Feb he has an effective 8-9 man rotation going well."
Which one or two players will not be in the rotation?
|
|