prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,527
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 8, 2015 9:14:05 GMT -5
If coaches were all knowing and their decisions can never be questioned, then Craig Esherick would still be coaching the Hoyas.. Coach Esherick was with the program in one form or fashion for 30 years. Coach Esherick has seen more basketball than some posters have been alive. He saw the team play all the time via games and practice, he knew what was best. Why even question Coach Esherick? One could even argue that he recruited Roy and Jeff and if he had 1 more year the program would have been back to elite status with 2 NBA level players in the program. Double pump!
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,527
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 8, 2015 9:19:28 GMT -5
Not only that but the staff probably watch him at least 3 hours a day, say roughly at least 200 days a year. So that's 600 hours a year x 3 years. 1200 hours of watching Hayes. So they might just have a little bit more data then all of us Chinese food eating couch potatoes. *except for me, I can watch someone for 10 minutes between dipping dumplings in sweet and sour sauce and tell if a player is good or not like with Jeremiah Rivers. And they had Othella Harrington who played in the NBA for 17 years as a big man watching him for 1200 hours. You would think he would have given some input and lobbied on playing Hayes, if Hayes was this juggernaut in practice. An additional 165 minutes (5 x 33 games) would not have hurt anyone.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,527
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 8, 2015 9:30:28 GMT -5
The thing is if BJ (and it is BJ for those supposed diehard big Hayes fans on here. Not sure how they could not know that). was this juggernaut who was being denied playing time he simply would have left/transferred. It is really obvious that no one said he was a juggernaut. He was denied an opportunity to show what he could do with the other starters.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,527
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 8, 2015 9:34:59 GMT -5
The thing is if BJ (and it is BJ for those supposed diehard big Hayes fans on here. Not sure how they could not know that). Or maybe it's a bit personal and only his girlfriends should call him that. I'd rather call him Captain Hook!
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,558
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 8, 2015 9:40:07 GMT -5
pr, I'll agree with you that we're both excited about what he's doing right now. As for minutes per game? I'll leave that to the coaches. It's what they're good at. Reggie is great so far this year. Who is wondering why he didn't get more time last year? He was bad. No way to sugarcoat it. He figured it out. He had some good performances freshman year and then looked lost. Like Reggie, Bradley got in great shape and figured out the O and D this year. Kudos to both dudes. It doesn't mean anyone owed them more minutes prior to the respective revelations. Give it a month or two and we'll have the same "argument" over Trey. All I mean to say is that I know nothing and most of us know nothing and, in the absence of any knowledge... Reggie is a good example of getting close to 5 minutes to see what he could do or help with foul trouble. Five mpg for Bradley could have revealed a lot for the staff, Bradley and all. That's all I'm saying. I already started the Play Trey! If that jumper starts to fall, watch out. Btw, I here he's automatic during game warm-ups. Except Reggie didn't get close to 5 a game last year. He got closer to 3 and Bradley got about a minute less than that. As for the NIT and NCAA comment, I didn't mean the games weren't important. I meant the opponents weren't any good.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 8, 2015 9:40:24 GMT -5
Let me say at the outset that, if it were me, I'd play some of my lower rotational guys a bit more in the early season games than does III, at least in those games that are clear blowouts. So, in that sense, I agree with PR. However, in III's defense, we really haven't had all that many of those in the past few years. There haven't been that many games like last night. That's one of the costs of upgrading the lower tier of the schedule to more "decent" teams. And, in any event, there are good reasons for III to do it his way, even in those games. Last night, for example, he spent a decent portion of the second half experimenting with a very big lineup among his regular rotational players (with Kaleb at the point). That's absolutely critical, because (as many have mentioned) guard depth could be an issue this year. So, getting some game-minutes with a rotation that you'd typically never use in a real situation unless you had to makes very good sense. That limited someone like Trey's time a bit, but Coach did get him three minutes in the first half with essentially the first team. He then got three in the second half primarily with subs. Could coach have given him a minute or two with the regulars in the second half? Sure. And I would have. But he decided, reasonably, that working on other things with the regulars on the court was more important. Three minutes of "real" time; three minutes with the subs. We could quibble, but that's perfectly reasonable to me.
So, games like last night's are one thing. And could Coach have done with Bradley what he is doing with Trey in similar settings? Yes, I agree (although, again, there really weren't that many of those games the past three years). I've consistently agreed.
But I just think you're flat wrong about games that are in doubt against competitive teams. First, last year, both Hop and Smith fouled out of the same game precisely once (a loss to St. John's -- and in that game they combined to play the full 40 minutes anyway). Thus, every single minute that Brad plays instead of one of them is a minute where, conceivably, a two or four point win turns into a two or four point loss. Sure, it may not. But it's not inconceivable that playing your third best option when you don't have to leads to a worse result and, thus, III's decision is entirely justified in my view. Games aren't just won and lost in the last few minutes. Losing a three point lead with two minutes to go in the first-half can completely change the tenor of a game.
|
|
hoyajinx
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,578
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyajinx on Dec 8, 2015 9:50:05 GMT -5
Not only that but the staff probably watch him at least 3 hours a day, say roughly at least 200 days a year. So that's 600 hours a year x 3 years. 1200 hours of watching Hayes. So they might just have a little bit more data then all of us Chinese food eating couch potatoes. *except for me, I can watch someone for 10 minutes between dipping dumplings in sweet and sour sauce and tell if a player is good or not like with Jeremiah Rivers. And they had Othella Harrington who played in the NBA for 17 years as a big man watching him for 1200 hours. You would think he would have given some input and lobbied on playing Hayes, if Hayes was this juggernaut in practice. So you are saying that because the staffs have more knowledge in basketball than us, they are always right? I mean they have watched more hours of Bradley Hayes than any of us has or will, so their judgement is perfect? That's like saying Jim Boehim is a better coach than Brad Stevens because he has been coaching longer in college Bball and has more experience in coaching/evaluating players. Best argument ever. I like. Classic example of a straw-man argument. At no point did he say that the coaching staff is in any way infallible. He merely stated that the staff has access to a much greater amount of information than the average fan so he is likely to defer to staff judgment on the matter rather than those who have seen Bradley play for less than 100 total minutes in the previous seasons. The Jim Boeheim analogy is, with all due respect, terrible. Professorhoya seems to be talking about THIS ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE and not necessarily JTIII's ability to evaluate talent in general. Making this about something much broader is absurd. The correct analogy would be "that's like saying Jim Boeheim has a better knowledge and understanding of his own personnel than Brad Stevens has of Syracuse because Boeheim has spent vastly more time watching that personnel play." I would argue that would be undoubtedly true. I will leave alone the fact that, in your analogy, Brad Stevens's basketball knowledge is a surrogate for that of any given Hoyatalk poster. The inanity in that should be patently obvious. But this horse has been beaten dead and revived multiple times just to be beaten dead again. At least this is the appropriate venue for this interminable argument. At some point can we focus on how Bradley performs and the strides he has made without making this about some sort of institutional failure?
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,527
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 8, 2015 9:54:47 GMT -5
Reggie is a good example of getting close to 5 minutes to see what he could do or help with foul trouble. Five mpg for Bradley could have revealed a lot for the staff, Bradley and all. That's all I'm saying. I already started the Play Trey! If that jumper starts to fall, watch out. Btw, I here he's automatic during game warm-ups. Except Reggie didn't get close to 5 a game last year. He got closer to 3 and Bradley got about a minute less than that. As for the NIT and NCAA comment, I didn't mean the games weren't important. I meant the opponents weren't any good. Yet they beat us. Reggie averaged 4.6 minutes and not in garbage minutes. He was given an opportunity to shoot his way to more playing time with the starters.
|
|
|
Post by michaeldm9 on Dec 8, 2015 10:07:05 GMT -5
Yes I am owed my due. I have been screaming on this board for years about the "Mishandling of one Bradley".
My biggest issue with Bradley not playing is I thought there was a GTown way. I have been a fan for GTown a long time. My reason for being a fan crosses many areas. One of them was that it wasn't just about winning. Be a winner in your personal life. Embody a a work effort and a discipline that would provide success on and off the court. Winning is a way of life not just stats they keep in the record books.
So over the past 2 years when I watch how JTIII handle Josh and Bradley it was not a pleasing sight. Josh has always been an underachiever. Never put in the work on and off the court. He was given many of chances and then once he finished using GTown he bolted. Now you sing Bradley praises of how he conducted himself on and off the court. You talk about how hard he worked and how great of a teammate he was. But somehow it didn't payoff for him in the manner it should have. Just didn't think he was treated fairly. Now I maybe jaded because of my disdain for one Mr Smith who came to Washington, but his record speaks for itself. I think Vee and Henry fell victims to not getting a real chance to play for some reason, but the players playing in front of them made it far less egregious.
Since he has been given real minutes and a chance to fail. Not succeed. Everyone deserves a chance to fail and prove that someone else is deserving of the job. Since given that chance he has step up to the challenge. Hopefully JTIII has learned. The Thompsons can be very Stubborn.
Don't get me wrong. I don't feel Bradley is the next coming of Shaq or Kareem. His game still has a long way to go. He needs to put more effort on the defensive end. I am just glad he is getting a fair opportunity to compete based on is contribution to the program as a whole.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,527
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 8, 2015 10:18:49 GMT -5
But I just think you're flat wrong about games that are in doubt against competitive teams. First, last year, both Hop and Smith fouled out of the same game precisely once (a loss to St. John's -- and in that game they combined to play the full 40 minutes anyway). Thus, every single minute that Brad plays instead of one of them is a minute where, conceivably, a two or four point win turns into a two or four point loss. Sure, it may not. But it's not inconceivable that playing your third best option when you don't have to leads to a worse result and, thus, III's decision is entirely justified in my view. Games aren't just won and lost in the last few minutes. Losing a three point lead with two minutes to go in the first-half can completely change the tenor of a game. Aleutian, JT3 is doing a great job of managing playing time this year and I agree with you in that we played many close games that did not give JT3 time to experiment. Why? Maybe it was because one of our bigs was one of the worst offensive frontcourt players under JT3 and he was given a lot of minutes. I'm more concerned with center than guard for next year. Who helps Govan? The available players are 4s. Hopefully Agau is healthy. Maybe Bradley's play helps to recruit another big this year. I believe you're flat out wrong too in your analysis of close games and minutes for Bradley. If you don't agree that Hops and Smith were foul prone (to say the least), then we should end the discussion here. How many times in the last two years did Hops pick up two fouls before the 16:00 mark of the first half? If JT3 would have inserted Bradley, maybe Hops and Smith are more agressive and productive by the end of the game because they have less fouls. You calculate that imaginary point swing if you want. Conceivably, Bradley could have helped offensively instead of Hops in those close games, just like he did when forced into the Tournament game last year.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Dec 8, 2015 10:26:41 GMT -5
Yes I am owed my due. I have been screaming on this board for years about the "Mishandling of one Bradley". My biggest issue with Bradley not playing is I thought there was a GTown way. I have been a fan for GTown a long time. My reason for being a fan crosses many areas. One of them was that it wasn't just about winning. Be a winner in your personal life. Embody a a work effort and a discipline that would provide success on and off the court. Winning is a way of life not just stats they keep in the record books. So over the past 2 years when I watch how JTIII handle Josh and Bradley it was not a pleasing sight. Josh has always been an underachiever. Never put in the work on and off the court. He was given many of chances and then once he finished using GTown he bolted. Now you sing Bradley praises of how he conducted himself on and off the court. You talk about how hard he worked and how great of a teammate he was. But somehow it didn't payoff for him in the manner it should have. Just didn't think he was treated fairly. Now I maybe jaded because of my disdain for one Mr Smith who came to Washington, but his record speaks for itself. I think Vee and Henry fell victims to not getting a real chance to play for some reason, but the players playing in front of them made it far less egregious. Since he has been given real minutes and a chance to fail. Not succeed. Everyone deserves a chance to fail and prove that someone else is deserving of the job. Since given that chance he has step up to the challenge. Hopefully JTIII has learned. The Thompsons can be very Stubborn. Don't get me wrong. I don't feel Bradley is the next coming of Shaq or Kareem. His game still has a long way to go. He needs to put more effort on the defensive end. I am just glad he is getting a fair opportunity to compete based on is contribution to the program as a whole. So he is getting a fair opportunity to compete, then? Glad to hear. Damn shame that JTIII offered some other kids, like Smith, the opportunity to compete though, huh? And, such a shame that Henry never got a real chance either. JTIII really derailed that kid's future (never mind that Henry has admitted that he was the one most to blame for his struggles in his earlier years).
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
B. Hayes
Dec 8, 2015 10:35:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by rockhoya on Dec 8, 2015 10:35:40 GMT -5
Not only that but the staff probably watch him at least 3 hours a day, say roughly at least 200 days a year. So that's 600 hours a year x 3 years. 1200 hours of watching Hayes. So they might just have a little bit more data then all of us Chinese food eating couch potatoes. *except for me, I can watch someone for 10 minutes between dipping dumplings in sweet and sour sauce and tell if a player is good or not like with Jeremiah Rivers. And they had Othella Harrington who played in the NBA for 17 years as a big man watching him for 1200 hours. You would think he would have given some input and lobbied on playing Hayes, if Hayes was this juggernaut in practice. So you are saying that because the staffs have more knowledge in basketball than us, they are always right? I mean they have watched more hours of Bradley Hayes than any of us has or will, so their judgement is perfect? That's like saying Jim Boehim is a better coach than Brad Stevens because he has been coaching longer in college Bball and has more experience in coaching/evaluating players. Best argument ever. I like. It's a better argument than you know in better despite only watching maybe 4% of him actually playing basketball.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Dec 8, 2015 10:37:44 GMT -5
The thing is if BJ (and it is BJ for those supposed diehard big Hayes fans on here. Not sure how they could not know that). was this juggernaut who was being denied playing time he simply would have left/transferred. It is really obvious that no one said he was a juggernaut. He was denied an opportunity to show what he could do with the other starters. It's called practice, and earning it. College basketball isn't a game of handouts.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 8, 2015 10:39:11 GMT -5
Yes I am owed my due. I have been screaming on this board for years about the "Mishandling of one Bradley". My biggest issue with Bradley not playing is I thought there was a GTown way. I have been a fan for GTown a long time. My reason for being a fan crosses many areas. One of them was that it wasn't just about winning. Be a winner in your personal life. Embody a a work effort and a discipline that would provide success on and off the court. Winning is a way of life not just stats they keep in the record books. So over the past 2 years when I watch how JTIII handle Josh and Bradley it was not a pleasing sight. Josh has always been an underachiever. Never put in the work on and off the court. He was given many of chances and then once he finished using GTown he bolted. Now you sing Bradley praises of how he conducted himself on and off the court. You talk about how hard he worked and how great of a teammate he was. But somehow it didn't payoff for him in the manner it should have. Just didn't think he was treated fairly. Now I maybe jaded because of my disdain for one Mr Smith who came to Washington, but his record speaks for itself. I think Vee and Henry fell victims to not getting a real chance to play for some reason, but the players playing in front of them made it far less egregious. Since he has been given real minutes and a chance to fail. Not succeed. Everyone deserves a chance to fail and prove that someone else is deserving of the job. Since given that chance he has step up to the challenge. Hopefully JTIII has learned. The Thompsons can be very Stubborn. Don't get me wrong. I don't feel Bradley is the next coming of Shaq or Kareem. His game still has a long way to go. He needs to put more effort on the defensive end. I am just glad he is getting a fair opportunity to compete based on is contribution to the program as a whole. So he is getting a fair opportunity to compete, then? Glad to hear. Damn shame that JTIII offered some other kids, like Smith, the opportunity to compete though, huh? And, such a shame that Henry never got a real chance either. JTIII really derailed that kid's future (never mind that Henry has admitted that he was the one most to blame for his struggles in his earlier years). There's a legitimate question with Bradley (that has now been done to death). But to say that it's a pattern is absurd. Henry did get significant time; it's a complete myth to say he didn't. He got 9 minutes a game as a freshman! 14 as a junior. The guy played a lot. Vee did too. He played 7 minutes a game as a sophomore (and actually more than that as a freshman). His sophomore year was a team that had senior guards in Wright and Freeman and a junior guard in Clark. Markel was also a freshman -- and he got significant time (more like 10 minutes a game). III certainly didn't hesitate to play Markel (and develop him) and playing Vee more to the detriment of Markel may have run off Markel! The point is that he didn't bury Vee on the bench -- he played a whopping five guards significant minutes (not even counting Hollis). We can argue about whether Vee should have stayed (for his own benefit -- surely it would have benefited the team if he had), but his playing time was perfectly appropriate. And there doesn't appear to be a pattern going forward either. Trey is playing a handful of minutes a game. Is there someone he should be playing instead of in meaningful games?
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Dec 8, 2015 10:42:36 GMT -5
Everyone is forgetting that once BJ isn't able to establish deep post position before the catch there really isn't much else he can do other than be a big body and try to clean up the glass. Yes he's playing well, but let's not act like he's NBA material. He probably learned his hook shot from Hop and Josh after all (I'm being completely serious, where else would he have learned to be a real big man other than train with his teammates).
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Dec 8, 2015 10:49:01 GMT -5
Let's not forget that during the few early OOC minutes that BJ did get the last 2 years, he looked slow, mechanical, foul-prone. Granted they were very small samples. There have also been the problems of having injury/academic/two-and-done situations that have required that the top of the rotation players be given more OOC minutes to play together and develop chemistry, necessarily limiting opportunities for the rest of the bench.
If you check out other teams' boards, virtually every one has arguments about bench players not getting enough opportunity. Some of them finally get their chance and shine. Some transfer and succeed elsewhere. Some finally get time and don't perform, or transfer and are never heard from again. I'm just thrilled that Bradley is shining brightly.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 8, 2015 10:49:14 GMT -5
But I just think you're flat wrong about games that are in doubt against competitive teams. First, last year, both Hop and Smith fouled out of the same game precisely once (a loss to St. John's -- and in that game they combined to play the full 40 minutes anyway). Thus, every single minute that Brad plays instead of one of them is a minute where, conceivably, a two or four point win turns into a two or four point loss. Sure, it may not. But it's not inconceivable that playing your third best option when you don't have to leads to a worse result and, thus, III's decision is entirely justified in my view. Games aren't just won and lost in the last few minutes. Losing a three point lead with two minutes to go in the first-half can completely change the tenor of a game. Aleutian, JT3 is doing a great job of managing playing time this year and I agree with you in that we played many close games that did not give JT3 time to experiment. Why? Maybe it was because one of our bigs was one of the worst offensive frontcourt players under JT3 and he was given a lot of minutes. I'm more concerned with center than guard for next year. Who helps Govan? The available players are 4s. Hopefully Agau is healthy. Maybe Bradley's play helps to recruit another big this year. I believe you're flat out wrong too in your analysis of close games and minutes for Bradley. If you don't agree that Hops and Smith were foul prone (to say the least), then we should end the discussion here. How many times in the last two years did Hops pick up two fouls before the 16:00 mark of the first half? If JT3 would have inserted Bradley, maybe Hops and Smith are more agressive and productive by the end of the game because they have less fouls. You calculate that imaginary point swing if you want. Conceivably, Bradley could have helped offensively instead of Hops in those close games, just like he did when forced into the Tournament game last year. My last foray on this topic. Ever. We're in agreement on this year. Good. Hop and Smith both were foul prone. No argument there. And if there were a lot of times last year that both of them were sitting on the bench in foul trouble at the same time while we went to a small lineup and going to that small lineup hurt us, I would agree. But there really weren't. (I recognize that there WERE times like that the previous year -- the previous year is a separate issue in my view because there really is no real evidence to suggest that Brad was ready to meaningfully contribute -- we agree to disagree on the FSU game.) So what we're left with is a question about whether giving Bradley a few minutes means that one or both of our centers could be more aggressive down the stretch of games or whether Brad was simply a better option than Hop at the end of games in which Josh can't play in an offense-defense capacity. Right? Well, we don't know. We just don't know. While conceding that it may have worked out better in or one or more games, I'm noting that there is ample evidence to suggest that it may also have worked out worse in one or more games. And, as I've noted previously, if the argument is that "he should have played to get him ready for when we desperately needed him," that argument is the one argument we can definitively disprove. Because he WAS ready when we needed him (against E. Washington). In any event, it's just not a useful debate. If it was a mistake, there's no evidence that Coach has made it with other players either in the past or going forward.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Dec 8, 2015 10:52:30 GMT -5
This argument is mindnumbingly stupid.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,652
|
Post by guru on Dec 8, 2015 11:04:36 GMT -5
Yes I am owed my due. I have been screaming on this board for years about the "Mishandling of one Bradley". My biggest issue with Bradley not playing is I thought there was a GTown way. I have been a fan for GTown a long time. My reason for being a fan crosses many areas. One of them was that it wasn't just about winning. Be a winner in your personal life. Embody a a work effort and a discipline that would provide success on and off the court. Winning is a way of life not just stats they keep in the record books. So over the past 2 years when I watch how JTIII handle Josh and Bradley it was not a pleasing sight. Josh has always been an underachiever. Never put in the work on and off the court. He was given many of chances and then once he finished using GTown he bolted. Now you sing Bradley praises of how he conducted himself on and off the court. You talk about how hard he worked and how great of a teammate he was. But somehow it didn't payoff for him in the manner it should have. Just didn't think he was treated fairly. Now I maybe jaded because of my disdain for one Mr Smith who came to Washington, but his record speaks for itself. I think Vee and Henry fell victims to not getting a real chance to play for some reason, but the players playing in front of them made it far less egregious. Since he has been given real minutes and a chance to fail. Not succeed. Everyone deserves a chance to fail and prove that someone else is deserving of the job. Since given that chance he has step up to the challenge. Hopefully JTIII has learned. The Thompsons can be very Stubborn. Don't get me wrong. I don't feel Bradley is the next coming of Shaq or Kareem. His game still has a long way to go. He needs to put more effort on the defensive end. I am just glad he is getting a fair opportunity to compete based on is contribution to the program as a whole. You're certainly not wrong on this. Josh Smith was one of the great mistakes of the JT3 era. To anyone who looks closely at that situation, it's an ignoble mark on the program. Hindsight is always 20/20, but developing Bradley would have been a more palatable option than signing an overweight, unmotivated, petulant Smith who never seemed to appreciate the second chance he was given and who bolted school as soon as his last game was over. Whew. That got out of hand quickly. Anyway, I'm happy for Bradley. He's really making the most of his chance this season.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,558
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 8, 2015 11:14:24 GMT -5
Except Reggie didn't get close to 5 a game last year. He got closer to 3 and Bradley got about a minute less than that. As for the NIT and NCAA comment, I didn't mean the games weren't important. I meant the opponents weren't any good. Yet they beat us. Reggie averaged 4.6 minutes and not in garbage minutes. He was given an opportunity to shoot his way to more playing time with the starters. No he didn't. He averaged 4.6 in the games in which he played. He had 10 DNP coach's decision last year. 105 minutes over 33 games is around 3.1 minutes.
|
|