RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Mar 4, 2012 11:50:38 GMT -5
And you think III has not been trying to get a premier point guard? He has, but it's a waste of time Ed, as long as the offense remains as rigid as is--nobody will come to Georgetown. he's got to adapt his offense to fit a more traditional PG's game. Now maybe III will get a Trey Burke (underrated guy in HS and surprises in college) but Michigan allows Burke to handle the ball a lot--and that's not way Bielein prefers to play. If you are a PG--the "System" isn't attractive because you don't have ball in your hands a lot--and if you are a great/good PG who is used to running a team and creating for teammates, you are used to having ball in your hands and ability to attack in transition. In halfcourt--Hoyas PG is the 5/4 man whichever is best passer-Jeff, Greg, and Henry. Everything runs through them. Problem is-when you get zone defense--the area where your 4/5 has ball-he's got to be a serious threat to hit that shot and Greg/Henry aren't. Jeff was--but also benefitted from Roy down low and they could invert. If you don't have legit point--you need a roster of guys whose strength is handling the ball--which isn't this group's nor is finishing at rim--as was pointed out correctly above. Nobody is saying III isn't a good coach--but he can be stubborn in his ways and some of them arent effective. If you want to argue about my criticisms and their validity in past then you'll find out just how correct the assessments of this program have been. III's done a great job this year of improving weaknesses but to get this program to level where they can be a threat/have response for whatever is thrown at them--they need to be more flexible and attractive to point guards who at first glance might not be preferred. It's one thing to have Wallace/Sapp when you have 5 NBA Frontcourt players on your team, they can play their role and the versatility and talent of the teammates gave them space to shoot and play. It also hid their liabilities on defense. That is hard to rely on--because it's not easy to get 5 NBA frontcourt players on 1 team, so why not hedge your bet and add someone who can make game easier and throw different dimension when teams take away what you prefer to do?
|
|
OldHoyafan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,387
|
Post by OldHoyafan on Mar 4, 2012 11:51:02 GMT -5
I know some do not like the criticism of RDF but there is truth in what he says. I am not sure why JT3 may unappreciate the value of a true PG but the fact is he has not had but one (John Wall) since he took over. Even Wall for all his good decision making and 3pt prowess, did not have the handle to break a press. Maybe it is because Caril never had true point guards in his system; maybe it is because he was one of the leading assists leaders on his Princeton team each year while playing the forward position. Although we know who the main recruiting coaches are for the big men, I , at least, have not read on this board who the main coaches are for guard recruitment. I was very happy to hear that Markel was coming to Georgetown last year because his coach was Dwayne Bryant. Bryant and Tilmon were two of the smoothest guards in Hoya history. Each had a handle and could shoot the midrange jumper with accuracy. To think that Markel had been tutored by Bryant gave me much hope that the trend of recruiting only combo guards had ended. Markel played scared last year when facing pressing teams, but I attributed that to freshmen jitters. This year though he has played the same way when pressured. The ball stays in his hands only a millisecond before he passes it when pressured. This is a very good team that can beat a lot of teams, but the lack of a true point guard to handle the press makes it vulnarable to an average team which has athletic guards who can employ a tough press. It's time to bring back the Bryant's , Tilmons, Jackson's, Smiths, and Walls for summer workouts with the young guard recruits. This team can win a lot of games in an NCAA tournament, but can not win it all without a true PG somewhere on the roster.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 4, 2012 11:53:42 GMT -5
I hope JTIII is shaking bushes and turning over man-hole covers, because if pressing us makes our boys look this bad, we need a PG in the worse way. I know we all want taller guys and front court players, but what good are they if we cant get the ball down the court on a consistent basis. I hope he pulls something out of his sleeve, real soon like. Because next year we have 3 guards on this team and thats including DSR. I don't have the concerns in the abilities of the guys on next season's roster, I simply have a problem with the lack of depth. But I went over all that back in the summer and early fall. However let me point out it is kinda tough for III to get a slew of elite guards when you have an offense that takes the ball out of the point guard's hands and puts it in the hands of bigs to run the offense. That's a reality. How many good guards want to play in such an offense? I'm guessing a limited number. Edited to give a shout out to RDF for beating me to the punch. III should have an offense that is more balanced and allows for creativity by his guards as well as his big guys, but he prefers his big man to be the creator on the floor. That hurts when it comes to getting the very best guards but the good news is the Hoyas have had a string of successful years of attracting their top big men recruits with the promise that the offense will run through them. Oh, wait!
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Mar 4, 2012 11:58:18 GMT -5
I hope JTIII is shaking bushes and turning over man-hole covers, because if pressing us makes our boys look this bad, we need a PG in the worse way. I know we all want taller guys and front court players, but what good are they if we cant get the ball down the court on a consistent basis. I hope he pulls something out of his sleeve, real soon like. Because next year we have 3 guards on this team and thats including DSR. I don't have the concerns in the abilities of the guys on next season's roster, I simply have a problem with the lack of depth. But I went over all that back in the summer and early fall. However let me point out it is kinda tough for III to get a slew of elite guards when you have an offense that takes the ball out of the point guard's hands and puts it in the hands of bigs to run the offense. That's a reality. How many good guards want to play in such an offense? I'm guessing a limited number. ^-Thank you MCI!
|
|
swhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by swhoya on Mar 4, 2012 11:59:04 GMT -5
And you think III has not been trying to get a premier point guard? Nobody is saying III isn't a good coach--but he can be stubborn in his ways and some of them arent effective. Aren't effective? Someone else can go find the numbers, but how often have we been ranked in the top 10 over the last few seasons, and how few teams in that time have matched our consistency? (Cue the inevitable tournament criticism. Some valid, some not). It's just the level of criticism and frankly the condescending tone from a bunch of keyboard junkies that ticks me off. III has consistently gotten us in the tournament and has competed at the top of the hardest conference in the country. We haven't been a bubble team. We haven't been in the NIT, which is what I would expect given the condescending criticism I read here. Is he perfect? No. Is he or "the system" as bad as you make it out to be? ABSOLUTELY not. Fact is that it's gotten the job done. The notion that we can't get a premier PG is just silly. How many "premier" PGs are out there? And you want to change a system that was worked well just so that we can fill one position with a player that will stay a year or two at most? And you think we can get that sort of players despite our lack of on-campus facilities and arena, and (I hope) our unwillingness to engage in some of the crap that other programs do? Scrapping the "system" was the only thing keeping us from getting Derrick Rose, John Wall, etc.? Come on. We're winning. We're not an NIT team.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 4, 2012 12:03:29 GMT -5
The Georgetown/Princeton offense adapts to the strengths of the players. If you get guys who can beat defenders off the dribble without being completely out of control and are able to pass when the defense collapses on them, the offense is perfect for them. That is the basic play of the Princeton offense. If you have a versatile big man like Jeff Green who is unguardable and makes good decisions with the ball, you run the offense through him and the guards spot up or cut off the ball. "Unguardable"? Really? Was that what Jeff was? We don't need Villanova's "give it to the point guard and let him dribble off screens offense." [/quote] No one is asking for a Nova styyle, a Memphis style or even a Kentucky style. But it would be nice to add certain elements to the current offense.
|
|
|
Post by thejerseytornado on Mar 4, 2012 12:11:05 GMT -5
this is all just waaaay too negative. Yes, it'd be nice to have an elite PG, but what team doesn't think that? other teams dream of having a SF like Porter, or a passing big man like Hank, etc. Assembling a dream team isn't really possible (unless you're Calipari, but then the dream team technically doesn't exist...soooo....)
Our offense has generally done well against zone defenses. And bringing them in is kinda just jumping from critique to critique. I thought this was about beatinga press and playing good defense? Well, our defense is 10th (10th!!!) in the nation according to kenpom this year. Our offense has fallen off a bit, but is that a surprise considering how many minutes are going to frosh and sophs?
A coach can't snap his fingers and get a PG or a new group of players all of a sudden.
III's offense actually changes a lot year to year. Yeah, things do stay consistent in terms of principles and some of the plays, but if the PG is the best passing option, he'll get more opportunities to be the focal point of the offense. Even when Monroe was around, Chris Wright had the most APG from the PG position. This year, with a sophomore (sophomore!) Starks splitting time at the PG spot, Sims has the most assists.
It's one thing to say we want to get better PGs and more ball handlers. That's totally reasonable and I agree. It's another to blast "the system" and the coaches for some mysterious level of stubbornness (you play with the team you have, not the team you wish you had) after a season that was generally a success, whether or not you call it overachieving or not.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 4, 2012 12:24:15 GMT -5
Nobody is saying III isn't a good coach--but he can be stubborn in his ways and some of them arent effective. Aren't effective? Someone else can go find the numbers, but how often have we been ranked in the top 10 over the last few seasons, and how few teams in that time have matched our consistency? (Cue the inevitable tournament criticism. Some valid, some not). III is a very good coach who has done wonders at getting Gtown back to a high level considering the lack of resources and toys (facilities). However, IMO, he is holding himself back from being a great coach or possibly one of the elite coaches by his rigidity in terms of how he orchestrates/controls the offense. Remember it was III himself who bristled at the use of the description "Princeton offense"; it was III who made pointed remarks to the media a few years back that fast NBA teams like the Sacramento Kings used incorporated elements of the Princeton offense even while being aggressive and playing at a fast pace. But in the end III coaches the team as if he is saddled with a bunch of Ivy League players with relatively little ability. Again when a fan of the program like Jay Bilas commented (and not in a negative way) that he has never seen a program that works so little on the fast break during practice is a very telling remark. Bilas might have as well added that (and I'm guessing) he has never seen a team practiced less at pressing or breaking a press either. Actually the Hoyas have been in two NITs since III has been here but I'm not faulting him for that. The guy has made the Hoyas relevant again, he is a very good coach and he runs a classy program. For his sake and the program's I only wish he would take it to the next level. This season I saw promise in that he used his frosh more, he had a nine man rotation, there were at least signs of a press from time to time. But he could tweak things even more and diversify his team's approach on the floor without straying too far from the principles he hold so dear. And let's remember that elite winners such as Coach K and Phil Jackson were scrutinized by fans of their teams even despite all their championships. Now one can look at that as an example of how fans are never satisfy, ad that may be correct. But one can also look at it and understand that no one is above criticism no matter how great their results have been. There are actually a lot more premier PG recruits on annual basis then you seem to realize. Most won't be John Wall or Derrick Rose good, just as most bigs won't be as good as A. Davis. But there are plenty of highly rated guards produced each year. Now is it a guarantee those guys will live up to expectations once they arrive on a campus? No. But you still have to go after them and win some recruiting battles. As you pointed out in your comments, the Hoyas have been highly ranked for most of III's tenure. Shouldn't that be enough to bring in more top rated guards? I understand the facilities hurt but to be fair, dude, the Hoyas get dropped off lists way before many of those recruits even get a chance to see the horrid facilities. What scares them away is either lackluster/indifferent recruiting or the offense that GU runs. With all this being said I must point out again that I'm happy with the guards we have. I worry about the depth.
|
|
757hoyafan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,999
|
Post by 757hoyafan on Mar 4, 2012 12:41:12 GMT -5
I wonder why we never see threads about dismissing the O or any other silly a&& crap after we beat ND or any other ranked team. Are we supposed to blow up the entire team based on how the other team beat us? gtfoh...
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Mar 4, 2012 12:45:07 GMT -5
Nobody is saying III isn't a good coach--but he can be stubborn in his ways and some of them arent effective. Aren't effective? Someone else can go find the numbers, but how often have we been ranked in the top 10 over the last few seasons, and how few teams in that time have matched our consistency? (Cue the inevitable tournament criticism. Some valid, some not). It's just the level of criticism and frankly the condescending tone from a bunch of keyboard junkies that ticks me off. III has consistently gotten us in the tournament and has competed at the top of the hardest conference in the country. We haven't been a bubble team. We haven't been in the NIT, which is what I would expect given the condescending criticism I read here. Is he perfect? No. Is he or "the system" as bad as you make it out to be? ABSOLUTELY not. Fact is that it's gotten the job done. The notion that we can't get a premier PG is just silly. How many "premier" PGs are out there? And you want to change a system that was worked well just so that we can fill one position with a player that will stay a year or two at most? And you think we can get that sort of players despite our lack of on-campus facilities and arena, and (I hope) our unwillingness to engage in some of the crap that other programs do? Scrapping the "system" was the only thing keeping us from getting Derrick Rose, John Wall, etc.? Come on. We're winning. We're not an NIT team. Areas III Has Struggled/Needs To Improve: 1. Tried to play Small Ball without athletic group and made the smaller team play halfcourt. How did that work? No coach at any level has a small team and makes them play possession ball against set defense. Your advantage is to get looks in transition and you either recruit to get faster/more athletic or you get bigger. He didn't do either. 2. No accountabilty last 3 years in program--guys could be out of shape, guys could get away without defending, and he praised those guys--and then this year his tone changed about the past groups. Why? If you have a problem with how things were--aren't you the coach and control the program? It's useless to fire shots at guys who are gone because it will never change the outcome. At least those of us with critical assessments do so inseason and while you disagree/defend him--this is 100% on III and wrong. Problems don't get solved by talking in past-they get corrected when you confront them. 3. He prefers pattern over tempo--always has. When his teams score points--they win. Yet time/time again he's holding his arm up to slow it down. Why? Why does he always want to go against set defense when his teams play a style that demands ball security yet they are sloppy with the ball? That makes zero sense. 4. Lack of gameplanning for opponents. Georgetown could play a lineup of 5'10 guys and lineup of 6'10 opponents and they wouldn't change to attack the weakness. For instance--this year at MSG, Hoyas put on press and blew out SJU due to their shaky ball handling. So what happens in rematch? Hoyas don't press a team that has 6 scholarship players and 2 of those are guards-=none a traditional point. Why wouldn't you do what not only worked against their personnel first time but in facing a team with less personnel and considering you have a deeper team? It's why Hoyas struggle against lesser teams-they keep them in games due to less possessions and shorter game is-you keep less talented teams in the game. III doesn't adjust this--it's bad coaching. He'd have Hibbert/Sims out 20 feet from hoop against guard oriented team and play his small teams halfcourt against a bigger/more athletic opponent. 5. Recruiting. I understand that III faces many limitations due to facilities and academic standards (which I commend Georgetown for having). That said--why limit the base of talent you recruit by eliminating certain types of players due to not being certain they fit your style of play. If you are a quick/athletic guard and can defend but struggle shooting-Georgetown has no interest. So when Georgetown continues to get abused by opposing point guards (many who are average) due to not being athletic/quick at the position,why are fans surprised? Great athletes develop quickly--they just need coaching. Nobody is saying you take a team of them--but this team can afford to have a less shooting/great athlete compared to a supposed great "fit" like Starks who isn't hitting shots, can't handle pressure or hasn't shown it to this point. That's the point. It's not bashing-it's criticism that have validity and for the program to improve its going to have to be addressed--just as my past criticisms were addressed and low and behold-team finished above middle of pack in conference this year for first team since '08. Minute someone is above criticism you have issues. Nobody said to fire him. Just want to see him improve how he coaches and want to see him improve the team and make them best they can be. III has made Hoyas relevant again. Appreciate that. He's a very good coach who can be great--but I believe needs to tweak/improve some areas to take that step. Just can't figure out why he's reluctant to do so and want to see make some adjustments.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Mar 4, 2012 12:59:42 GMT -5
I wonder why we never see threads about dismissing the O or any other silly a&& crap after we beat ND or any other ranked team. Are we supposed to blow up the entire team based on how the other team beat us? gtfoh... For a fanbase made up of many intelligent people, the reading comprehension level if just insanely low. Nobody is saying blow up the system the argument is that they rarely get to use it and why not add to it?--but if you want to improve--do some of you guys view improvement as a negative thing?--you need to be versatile enough to handle what opponents throw at you. If you are pressed--you need someone who can handle the ball. If you are weak in defending opposing guards--you need guys who are able to that--and usually they come in same package--quick/athletic. Georgetown would be ignorant even bothering to attempt to recruit the top PG's in country. They won't come until you prove you will adapt to allow them to play their game. Simply put-they need a guy whose ability to handle the ball and defend and most importantly VALUE THE BALL are his strengths. Think of most Hoyas games--if you get 8-10 fastbreak/transition points, would it change outcome? I think so. Everyone's talking about the FT's yesterday--well the 24-8 pts off turnovers didn't help in a 14 pt loss. Get someone in the program who can add a dimension. That happens-and low and behold--you get to play more of your preferred style of play because teams have to respect that you can play in any style of game and can't just sit in a zone and take their chances that you'll walk it up, limit your chances/advantages (Georgetown Wing players are one of best as a group in country). Porter/Whittington/Hollis/Trawick all have shown excellent decision making in transition and run breaks well. When Hoya guards run break-it's a mess--dating back to Wright/Freeman too-where you would think they excel--they often botched them and Jason is at his best when he looks to score rather then lead break--he doesn't get to middle and he passes late. How anyone would use ND to emphasize a point. You mean same team who wanted to slow Georgetown down? The team that's coach said "We need game in high 40's/low 50's" as a sign of Hoyas running great offense? That game was won on defensive end and happy it was--but what broke the game open? Tempo/pace of how the offense was run. Which is what those of us WANT TO SEE. They got into their sets quickly. They pushed ball into the frontcourt and ran their offense. That is when III's teams are at their best--which is why the question is asked-why doesn't he demand this/do this every game? You can't win every game but you can set a tone for how your program plays and it's not hard to tell your players--push it and get into the offense. Thing is-you don't have to tell a true PG to do that. It happens naturally. Which is point of the suggestion/criticism.
|
|
swhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by swhoya on Mar 4, 2012 13:53:38 GMT -5
I wonder why we never see threads about dismissing the O or any other silly a&& crap after we beat ND or any other ranked team. Are we supposed to blow up the entire team based on how the other team beat us? gtfoh... For a fanbase made up of many intelligent people, the reading comprehension level if just insanely low. Nobody is saying blow up the system the argument is that they rarely get to use it and why not add to it?--but if you want to improve--do some of you guys view improvement as a negative thing?--you need to be versatile enough to handle what opponents throw at you. If you are pressed--you need someone who can handle the ball. If you are weak in defending opposing guards--you need guys who are able to that--and usually they come in same package--quick/athletic. Georgetown would be ignorant even bothering to attempt to recruit the top PG's in country. They won't come until you prove you will adapt to allow them to play their game. Simply put-they need a guy whose ability to handle the ball and defend and most importantly VALUE THE BALL are his strengths. Think of most Hoyas games--if you get 8-10 fastbreak/transition points, would it change outcome? I think so. Everyone's talking about the FT's yesterday--well the 24-8 pts off turnovers didn't help in a 14 pt loss. Get someone in the program who can add a dimension. That happens-and low and behold--you get to play more of your preferred style of play because teams have to respect that you can play in any style of game and can't just sit in a zone and take their chances that you'll walk it up, limit your chances/advantages (Georgetown Wing players are one of best as a group in country). Porter/Whittington/Hollis/Trawick all have shown excellent decision making in transition and run breaks well. When Hoya guards run break-it's a mess--dating back to Wright/Freeman too-where you would think they excel--they often botched them and Jason is at his best when he looks to score rather then lead break--he doesn't get to middle and he passes late. How anyone would use ND to emphasize a point. You mean same team who wanted to slow Georgetown down? The team that's coach said "We need game in high 40's/low 50's" as a sign of Hoyas running great offense? That game was won on defensive end and happy it was--but what broke the game open? Tempo/pace of how the offense was run. Which is what those of us WANT TO SEE. They got into their sets quickly. They pushed ball into the frontcourt and ran their offense. That is when III's teams are at their best--which is why the question is asked-why doesn't he demand this/do this every game? You can't win every game but you can set a tone for how your program plays and it's not hard to tell your players--push it and get into the offense. Thing is-you don't have to tell a true PG to do that. It happens naturally. Which is point of the suggestion/criticism. Yaaawwwwwwn. Let's see, when we had a guy that would have been considered a "premier" point guard out of high school--a McD All-American at that--we were too small (also one of your criticisms). Now that we're much bigger/longer, it's that we lack a premier point guard. When I was at Georgetown (98-02), we had a "pure" PG (who acted like a combo). How'd that work out for us? Before that, it was that we needed longer SGs and wings. Well, we got that. Next it's going to be we need the best shot blocker in the country (we tried for that and we still have a shot at that this year). We are Big Man U. That's our strength. That's what we can sell. And under III, we've become Big Man U for those that want to develop an all-around skill set. You want to be all things to all people. We don't have the resources to do that. We tried to get Kyle Anderson; we were on hit short list. Just one program was going to win out on him. At some point, we will get another All-American PG, or we'll get solid guards that can develop (haven't given up on Starks in that regard). I just think you're being unreasonable in your demands/criticisms/expectations.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 4, 2012 15:20:21 GMT -5
I wonder why we never see threads about dismissing the O or any other silly a&& crap after we beat ND or any other ranked team. Are we supposed to blow up the entire team based on how the other team beat us? gtfoh... You want threads started about them? Nonsense. There have been enough disputes about it already throughout the years. My complaint about the offense has been consistent over the years, I just don't feel the need to bring it up every other post. Even in most games in which the Hoyas lose I won't bring it up. There is a time and place for everything after all. To bring it up all the time would make me a troll. However I always felt the O could be improved to help further ensure the success of the team. Look, as I pointed out in previous threads over the years, there is no excuse to lose a game like the Hoyas did this season against Cincy in which the team shot well over 50% but couldn't even score 70 points! Awful teams can shoot a high percentage like that and score in the 90s, but over the years Gtown has kept opponents in a game far too long despite shooting lights out. Sometimes the Hoyas have even lost such games (as they did against the Bearcats). Plenty of us have mentioned this before. Maybe you didn't happen to see those posts. However this is the recruiting thread so I felt the need to get back to the point in response to those who doubt the offense does not have an effect on recruiting. I've been informed by enough people that it does. Obviously that doesn't mean III can't bring in his share of great players. But it does mean his chances of getting those players may be less than other coaches of his caliber.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 4, 2012 15:23:52 GMT -5
Areas III Has Struggled/Needs To Improve: 1. Tried to play Small Ball without athletic group and made the smaller team play halfcourt. How did that work? No coach at any level has a small team and makes them play possession ball against set defense. Your advantage is to get looks in transition and you either recruit to get faster/more athletic or you get bigger. He didn't do either. THIS! Probably my main pet peeve the last couple of years.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 4, 2012 15:48:09 GMT -5
For a fanbase made up of many intelligent people, the reading comprehension level if just insanely low. Nobody is saying blow up the system the argument is that they rarely get to use it and why not add to it?--but if you want to improve--do some of you guys view improvement as a negative thing?--you need to be versatile enough to handle what opponents throw at you. If you are pressed--you need someone who can handle the ball. If you are weak in defending opposing guards--you need guys who are able to that--and usually they come in same package--quick/athletic. Georgetown would be ignorant even bothering to attempt to recruit the top PG's in country. They won't come until you prove you will adapt to allow them to play their game. Simply put-they need a guy whose ability to handle the ball and defend and most importantly VALUE THE BALL are his strengths. Think of most Hoyas games--if you get 8-10 fastbreak/transition points, would it change outcome? I think so. Everyone's talking about the FT's yesterday--well the 24-8 pts off turnovers didn't help in a 14 pt loss. Get someone in the program who can add a dimension. That happens-and low and behold--you get to play more of your preferred style of play because teams have to respect that you can play in any style of game and can't just sit in a zone and take their chances that you'll walk it up, limit your chances/advantages (Georgetown Wing players are one of best as a group in country). Porter/Whittington/Hollis/Trawick all have shown excellent decision making in transition and run breaks well. When Hoya guards run break-it's a mess--dating back to Wright/Freeman too-where you would think they excel--they often botched them and Jason is at his best when he looks to score rather then lead break--he doesn't get to middle and he passes late. How anyone would use ND to emphasize a point. You mean same team who wanted to slow Georgetown down? The team that's coach said "We need game in high 40's/low 50's" as a sign of Hoyas running great offense? That game was won on defensive end and happy it was--but what broke the game open? Tempo/pace of how the offense was run. Which is what those of us WANT TO SEE. They got into their sets quickly. They pushed ball into the frontcourt and ran their offense. That is when III's teams are at their best--which is why the question is asked-why doesn't he demand this/do this every game? You can't win every game but you can set a tone for how your program plays and it's not hard to tell your players--push it and get into the offense. Thing is-you don't have to tell a true PG to do that. It happens naturally. Which is point of the suggestion/criticism. Yaaawwwwwwn. Let's see, when we had a guy that would have been considered a "premier" point guard out of high school--a McD All-American at that--we were too small (also one of your criticisms). Now that we're much bigger/longer, it's that we lack a premier point guard. When I was at Georgetown (98-02), we had a "pure" PG (who acted like a combo). How'd that work out for us? Before that, it was that we needed longer SGs and wings. Well, we got that. Next it's going to be we need the best shot blocker in the country (we tried for that and we still have a shot at that this year). We are Big Man U. That's our strength. That's what we can sell. And under III, we've become Big Man U for those that want to develop an all-around skill set. You want to be all things to all people. We don't have the resources to do that. We tried to get Kyle Anderson; we were on hit short list. Just one program was going to win out on him. At some point, we will get another All-American PG, or we'll get solid guards that can develop (haven't given up on Starks in that regard). I just think you're being unreasonable in your demands/criticisms/expectations. Wow. I can't believe some of the arguments you just made. What does facilities/resources have to do with going after a more athletic and faster point guard (which by the way, Kyle Anderson, as talented as he may be , certainly is not.; if Anderson was fast like John Wall III would have never spent his entire summer following him)? It may hurt in not reeling the player in in the end but it shouldn't stop III from going after such a guy. And in RDF's defense it wasn't so much as that he wanted the Hoyas to get longer as it was WHY he wanted the Hoyas to get longer. He wanted more length on the wings for better halfcourt defense and (this is important) for the team to be more capable of pressuring on D and creating turnovers. III had the team work on that style of presuring early on, but as the BE approached he wisely decided that attempting such a style of play against the elite powers of Providence and Rutgers was more risky than when he trotted out such a defense against lesser foes like Memphis and Kansas. In all seriousness though what does "resources" have to do about applying a press? And as for being Big Man U how did that help in gaining the services of the Hoyas' top big man targets the past few years? I guess those guys were just too dumb to want to learn how to play an all around style huh? Actually you can argue they were foolish to not want to enhance their games. Yet it is their decision. Therefore if you want the Hoyas to go all out only for big men (as if big men recruit don't like "resources" either), if you want the Hoyas to put all of their eggs in the Big Man basket alone, then you better pray that they at least get one highly regarded big man recruit per year to justify all the trouble they went through. And even that wouldn't be enough because in college you win championships these days mostly with dominant perimeter players. The Hoyas can load up on great big men but if they don't have talented guards they ain't going anywhere. Hmmmm? I wonder why I feel that way. Could it be that I witnessed the Joey Brown era in which he played with Mutombo, Mourning and Harrington and had NOTHING to show for it? Nah. That would be crazy talk on my part.
|
|
|
Post by thejerseytornado on Mar 4, 2012 16:21:42 GMT -5
our defense is 10th in the nation according to the best defensive statistics I know. It got *better* during the big east season, not worse.
Markel was a four star PG ranked in the top 20 PGs in the nation when he was recruited. now he's terrible.
as for Bilas' comment--he's also fawned over how beautiful the offense is and how well executed. I wouldn't be surprised tosee the team work more on fast breaks in future years, but this is a team that is using one of the more complicated half court offenses out theres WITH MOSTLY UNDERCLASSMEN. They need to spend a disproportionate amount of time on the offense and the defense. The fast break, ideally, would be the most instinctive--fill your lane, be ready--and thus the most sacrificable part of a practice. With limited time, you have to pick what you focus your practice on.
the idea that III is stubborn just seems absurd from the outside. He's playing tons more zone than I've ever seen. He's used the press. He changes his starting line ups. He changed how and who he recruited. maybe there's something i've not seen but the idea that III thinks he is above criticism? completely unproven and, imo, a reckless and cheap shot at a man who has been an outstanding, if not perfect, coach.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 4, 2012 16:40:52 GMT -5
Areas III Has Struggled/Needs To Improve: 1. Tried to play Small Ball without athletic group and made the smaller team play halfcourt. How did that work? No coach at any level has a small team and makes them play possession ball against set defense. Your advantage is to get looks in transition and you either recruit to get faster/more athletic or you get bigger. He didn't do either. THIS! Probably my main pet peeve the last couple of years. We played small ball because we had Wright, Freeman, Clark, and Hollis. They are small but they were the best players on the team because Monroe left, Henry did not develop, Vaughn was limited, and despite all the bull on this board JTIII recruited some great guards and wings. Put those four on a team with a legit center and legit power forward and that would have been a great team. Thompson tried Nate at the four but it didn't solve the problem. He actually did well with a team that had to out score every opponent, until Wright was injured.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 4, 2012 17:22:54 GMT -5
Markel was a four star PG ranked in the top 20 PGs in the nation when he was recruited. now he's terrible. And, I for one still believe in Starks. That's one area where RDF and I differ. My only concern is depth. Never said otherwise. Like I pointed out in my post....he wasn't being negative when mentioning the lack of practice of fast breaks. He just threw it in as an observation. My point is that the fastbreak aspect should be worked on because those rare moments when the Hoyas do run, they just look so substandard at it. As I've argued before if the offense is so complicated that it takes decades to master and is so time consuming that other elements such as fastbreaks, dunking and er, free throws are put on the backburner, then perhaps one should consider pairing it down a bit. Lets not use this as an excuse because the problem still existed when the team was dominated by upperclassmen. Of course then the excuse was they weren't athletic enough, blah, blah, blah.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 4, 2012 17:28:24 GMT -5
THIS! Probably my main pet peeve the last couple of years. We played small ball because we had Wright, Freeman, Clark, and Hollis. They are small but they were the best players on the team because Monroe left, Henry did not develop, Vaughn was limited, and despite all the bull Edited on this board JTIII recruited some great guards and wings. Put those four on a team with a legit center and legit power forward and that would have been a great team. Thompson tried Nate at the four but it didn't solve the problem. He actually did well with a team that had to out score every opponent, until Wright was injured. I didn't object that III had a small lineup on the court. I objected that he had a small lineup that tried to play strictly halfcourt. And if that wasn't bad enough he let them play too many minutes as well which just ensured that those gusy would never get out on the run for easy baskets. As a result there were far too many games in which virtually every basket was hard to come by. And that was BEFORE Wright went down.
|
|
|
Post by thejerseytornado on Mar 4, 2012 18:07:55 GMT -5
Lets not use this as an excuse because the problem still existed when the team was dominated by upperclassmen. Of course then the excuse was they weren't athletic enough, blah, blah, blah. what if both are true and next year, the fast break will be more effective? that's not a possibility? Seems like a good one to me. And again, of all the parts of a game, if I were a coach, I'd spend the least time on a fast break. Here's a fast break: fill three lanes (either two wings and down the middle or replace one with trailing for an open three or mid-range shot), space yourselves, man w/ the ball makes his decision @ the elbow. it seems pretty inefficient to spend time in practice on fast break offense when you use it (even a good team) much less frequently than your half-court offense, especially when fast break offense is normally a high-percentage shot, practiced or not. As for the small lineup last year: WITH WHAT DEPTH WOULD YOU RUN? that team had a short as hell bench.
|
|