B. Hayes

[rockhoya]

Dec 8, 2015 23:05:59 GMT -5 prhoya said:

Dec 8, 2015 21:56:48 GMT -5 rockhoya said:

You do realize you argued against your own point right? We had Nate get minutes in front of Brad because he was so bad and we didn't have that luxury of a third center (and a luxury means an exception to the rule, i.e. out of the norm).

No, I proved my point, but you're choosing to ignore the facts. I just named our five centers, yet you say we didn't have a third. You hate facts. I get it.

Right.

[SFHoya99]

Dec 8, 2015 22:25:07 GMT -5 dreamhoya said:

Dec 8, 2015 0:16:47 GMT -5 professorhoya said:

If prime Shaq were in the league yes, because you would need big bodies.

I dunno hard to say because the league is moving to small ball at the center position and kind of those Euro 3pt guys like Porzingius. I guess you still have guys like the Lopez brothers and Asik. Hayes is your traditional big man but league has been moving away from that for quite some time now.

His defense would have to improve. He doesn't block shots and I'm not sure if it's because he does or does not have elite wingspan (even Gortat has a 7-6 wingspan) or because he's still working on that part of his game.

Then you need at least a mid range game like Asik or Gortat.

He's shown a work ethic and dedication so you can't rule it out.

Even getting a Brian Zoubec like NCAA run, I would take that but Zoubec never made the NBA and opened a candy store in New Jersey.
Henry Sims who was probably more defensively advanced and could drive to the basket made it with the 76ers but now is out of the league.

It's hard to say. I would just enjoy his development at this level now and worry about that stuff later.

Does anyone think that Hibbert's a ton > than Hayes?

Yes. Defense matters.

[SFHoya99]

Dec 8, 2015 22:03:02 GMT -5 dreamhoya said:

That's my next discussion. Trey really should be playing a lot more. Put him with Hayes, defense will be better. Period. Trey's another gamer.

And who is sitting?

[prhoya]

Dec 8, 2015 23:08:47 GMT -5 rockhoya said:

Dec 8, 2015 23:05:59 GMT -5 prhoya said:

No, I proved my point, but you're choosing to ignore the facts. I just named our five centers, yet you say we didn't have a third. You hate facts. I get it.

Right.

Exactly.

[HometownHoya]

Dec 8, 2015 23:52:55 GMT -5 prhoya said:

Dec 8, 2015 23:08:47 GMT -5 rockhoya said:

Right.

Exactly.

Good.

[dense]

Dec 8, 2015 20:52:54 GMT -5 prhoya said:

Dec 8, 2015 20:01:45 GMT -5 bmartin said:

Nobody plays their third team center regularly at an level of basketball. Starter plays, backup plays, starter returns, halftime, then repeat.

Yet Trey has played in 6 of 8 games from 3 to 14 minutes. Good for Trey, the staff and the team!! "Play Trey!"

Although I know your statement re: "nobody plays their third-team center regularly" is incorrect (and I just proved it with Trey), I could turn it around and say everybody with the luxury of having 3 or more centers does it. But, I don't care about anyone else's roster usage. Recent GU history has shown us that even a Nate Lubick got plenty of minutes at the 5, by design or necessity, with Hops, Smith, Moses and Bradley (and Caprio ) on the roster. Go Hoyas!!

Obviously JT3 is trying to find minutes for Trey because he is talented enough, he just very green. In essence trying to go against what he did with Hayes and Bowen and others. People on this board(not saying you) talk about jt3 never adjusts but he does tons of adjustments and tweaks to his style to try to innovate. Kaleb and Trey normally would not get any time in a previous JT3 regime. He is playing them to keep them engaged.

[dense]

Dec 8, 2015 22:23:26 GMT -5 dreamhoya said:

Dec 8, 2015 0:46:04 GMT -5 professorhoya said:

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.

Maybe it's not those things, or part of those things. And when JTIII says he had a coach that just didn't play him, maybe he's right...sometimes coaches get into a routine with the players they envision in certain roles within the system they teach ....sometimes coaches get stuck on the fact that a player is "project" and miss the fact that they may or could be more than that ...sometimes, in "practice" players don't get the same reps as first teamers and key bench players who all are pretty much interchangeable except the seven footer who ....sometimes, the fact that a player works hard, studies tape and knows as much or more about scouting report than the entire team (as JTIII has stated about Hayes) you'd think would earn a player SOMEthing ...sometimes a player doesn't fit the mold of player that the coach likes ...sometimes a coach doesn't like mistakes within a system and doesn't have the patience to allow a player to get better (see RGIII) unless your name is M. Hopkins ....anyway. that's the past. Hayes could stand to improve in a few areas and it seems like he's not being coached on those things. Like keeping the ball high or not switching constantly on smaller guys and to time his jumps better to block more shots etc. etc. Proud of the guy.

i dont think your point of what he is not being coached on makes much sense. He could be being coached on keeping the ball high and he is just not doing it. The switching thing isnt really something that can be changed. You either have switching principles or not and usually that is discussed by the coach prior and determined on the floor by the players. You cant coach dont switch in these particular situations(because a particular player is involved in the screening action) but do in these causes massive confusion on the court because everyone has to see the same thing in a split second.

[SaxaCD]

Dec 9, 2015 7:19:26 GMT -5 dense said:

Dec 8, 2015 22:23:26 GMT -5 dreamhoya said:

Maybe it's not those things, or part of those things. And when JTIII says he had a coach that just didn't play him, maybe he's right...sometimes coaches get into a routine with the players they envision in certain roles within the system they teach ....sometimes coaches get stuck on the fact that a player is "project" and miss the fact that they may or could be more than that ...sometimes, in "practice" players don't get the same reps as first teamers and key bench players who all are pretty much interchangeable except the seven footer who ....sometimes, the fact that a player works hard, studies tape and knows as much or more about scouting report than the entire team (as JTIII has stated about Hayes) you'd think would earn a player SOMEthing ...sometimes a player doesn't fit the mold of player that the coach likes ...sometimes a coach doesn't like mistakes within a system and doesn't have the patience to allow a player to get better (see RGIII) unless your name is M. Hopkins ....anyway. that's the past. Hayes could stand to improve in a few areas and it seems like he's not being coached on those things. Like keeping the ball high or not switching constantly on smaller guys and to time his jumps better to block more shots etc. etc. Proud of the guy.

i dont think your point of what he is not being coached on makes much sense. He could be being coached on keeping the ball high and he is just not doing it. The switching thing isnt really something that can be changed. You either have switching principles or not and usually that is discussed by the coach prior and determined on the floor by the players. You cant coach dont switch in these particular situations(because a particular player is involved in the screening action) but do in these causes massive confusion on the court because everyone has to see the same thing in a split second.

Actually, I thought he did a much better job making quicker decisions and keeping the ball higher just this past game.

[hoyainspirit]

Dec 8, 2015 22:25:07 GMT -5 dreamhoya said:

Does anyone think that Hibbert's a ton > than Hayes?

I do.

[This Just In]

Eastern Washington stats line:

Hopkins
21 mins., 1/1 FG's, 8/8 FT's
10pts, 9 Rebs. (2 Offensive), 1 Asst, 1 Stl, 2 Blks, 4 T.O.'s


Hayes
10 mins, 3/3 FG's, 2/2 FT's

8 pts, 6 Rebs (4 offensive), 1 Asst, 0 T.O.'s

Hopper did good and Hayes was also impressive given that he played in half the minutes.

[Cambridge]

Dec 8, 2015 22:25:07 GMT -5 dreamhoya said:

Dec 8, 2015 0:16:47 GMT -5 professorhoya said:

Does anyone think that Hibbert's a ton > than Hayes?

Is this for real? Have we reached peak Hayes delusion?

[Cambridge]

Dec 9, 2015 8:31:20 GMT -5 This Just In said:

Eastern Washington stats line:

Hopkins
21 mins., 1/1 FG's, 8/8 FT's
10pts, 9 Rebs. (2 Offensive), 1 Asst, 1 Stl, 2 Blks, 4 T.O.'s


Hayes
10 mins, 3/3 FG's, 2/2 FT's

8 pts, 6 Rebs (4 offensive), 1 Asst, 0 T.O.'s

Hopper did good and Hayes was also impressive given that he played in half the minutes.

As I pointed out in a previous post, most of Hops minutes were in the second half (16). He absolutely dominated the second half from a rebounding and defensive standpoint. That is why he stayed in the game.

[Cambridge]

Dec 8, 2015 23:10:50 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Dec 8, 2015 22:25:07 GMT -5 dreamhoya said:

Does anyone think that Hibbert's a ton > than Hayes?

Yes. Defense matters.

For all the talk about his offense, JTIII has shown over and over and over again that you have to play effective defense if you want to get playing time. Even with all his improvement, so far Hayes looks to be at best the third best post defender on the team - behind Doc and Mourning - and about even with Govan. Thankfully, Doc has been doing a pretty great job on the help side bailing Hayes out over the last few games.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Dec 8, 2015 17:35:21 GMT -5 prhoya said:

Dec 8, 2015 16:35:19 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

I'm really not trying to restart or rehash anything. I get it. You think Hayes should have played more. Your argument is basically based on one game where he didn't even play that well (FSU), and one game where he did (Eastern Washington), and his performance this year (years after the FSU game). Given all the other evidence we have, I don't think the evidence is terribly compelling to support your point of view. I think it requires significant assumptions and speculation to get from those facts to your solid opinion that Hayes should have played more.

Clearly, nothing is going to change your opinion at this point. And those of us who feel otherwise are not likely to change either. It's fine. We'll agree to disagree.

Funny, you just rehashed it and misinterpreted my position. One of the key parts were you and I see it differently is marked in bold. Again, I don't see that evidence "we have." What is it? Since the staff nor Bradley have pointed out a reason, your opinion requires "significant assumptions and speculation." And, btw, my argument is not based on just the games you mentioned, but about the general benefits of pt. Again, you can read through the pages for them.

Fair enough. I probably overstated the case for my position with regard to evidence. But, I think that's why this argument is silly. Most of this is speculation, and there is also a big "what if?" element that cannot possibly be answered because we cannot go back and see what would have happened had Hayes been provided with more time.

Given the general lack of information and the limited on-court information we have about Hayes, I personally am more likely to accept the "speculation" that Hayes' practice time and performance did not merit play over Smith/Hopkins and others, and I trust the coaching staff that had seen Hayes play countless hours in practice versus arguments from people on HoyaTalk who have not.

What makes this argument even more silly is that we're basically talking about 5-10 minutes a game. Even if Hayes did get more playing time, it's not like Smith and/or Hopkins would not have played a lot anyway. Thus, even if he had played more, his impact would have been minimal. And, clearly that hasn't hurt him from developing into a very good player this year.

[SFHoya99]

Dec 9, 2015 8:04:20 GMT -5 SaxaCD said:

Dec 9, 2015 7:19:26 GMT -5 dense said:

i dont think your point of what he is not being coached on makes much sense. He could be being coached on keeping the ball high and he is just not doing it. The switching thing isnt really something that can be changed. You either have switching principles or not and usually that is discussed by the coach prior and determined on the floor by the players. You cant coach dont switch in these particular situations(because a particular player is involved in the screening action) but do in these causes massive confusion on the court because everyone has to see the same thing in a split second.

Actually, I thought he did a much better job making quicker decisions and keeping the ball higher just this past game.

He did, but this thread is not about now or how good Hayes is. It's about how stubborn and awful JTIII is, who kept him on the bench because he's a vindictive, arrogant, petty moron.

[SFHoya99]

Dec 9, 2015 9:59:53 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

Dec 8, 2015 23:10:50 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Yes. Defense matters.

For all the talk about his offense, JTIII has shown over and over and over again that you have to play effective defense if you want to get playing time. Even with all his improvement, so far Hayes looks to be at best the third best post defender on the team - behind Doc and Mourning - and about even with Govan. Thankfully, Doc has been doing a pretty great job on the help side bailing Hayes out over the last few games.

I mean, none of them are great yet, but Govan obviously does a better job of rim protection. I haven't seen enough of Mourning. Hayes is the best rebounder in the bunch.

Hibbert blocked 10% of opponents' shots, rebounded basically as well as Hayes and anchored the #6 defense in the country despite having Sapp, freshman Freeman and Wallace as his perimeter defenders.

He shot better than Hayes from 2 and didn't turn the ball over.

Oh, and he did it against a schedule of the toughest conference probably ever, with cupcakes only comprising at worst 7 of 34 games. Four of Hayes' 8 games have been "cupcakes" (quotes for Radford) and while he's had good games against good teams, that still pads your stats.

In other words, your initial reaction was correct. Hayes is nowhere near Hibbert at this point. His hook may be more automatic, though. Hibbert had more moves but I'm not sure he was that locked in on the hook. He was better at most of the rest of the game, though.

[lichoya68]

MEAN really MEAN nuf said keep it up

[guru]

Dec 8, 2015 13:42:45 GMT -5 professorhoya said:

Dec 8, 2015 13:31:55 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

The Josh Smith experiment was not perfect, but I am not sure I would call it one of the "great mistakes" of the JT3 era. When JT3 brought Smith into the fold in 2013, it was in the context of a front court that wasn't very good. When he signed him in 2013, the frontcourt consisted of a very weak Hopkins on offensive, a very green Bradley Hayes, and a very raw Moses who really had shown little. Plus, by then, it was clear Tyler Adams would never play. And, we didn't have any big man recruits for 2014.

In that context, there was basically absolutely no downside to taking Smith. In that sense, I don't think it could possibly be one of the "great mistakes" of the JT3 era. Smith did not make the team worse. In fact, Smith was quite good offensively in both the 2014 and 2015 seasons. Yes, his academic ineligibility in 2014 was a bad thing, and yes, his attitude / early departure in 2015 was not a good thing, but on the court, I don't think it was a mistake.

Off the court, you can make all the arguments you want, but if you're simply trying to determine whether Smith was a mistake in relation to Hayes, I don't think there really is much to debate. Smith was clearly the better offensive player. If Smith had come to Georgetown and tanked, you'd have a different argument. But, he did not.

Also, the fact that Hayes really didn't get any more time once Smith was ineligible really speaks volumes of what the coaching staff thought of Hayes in his sophomore year. There's no reason to think that if Hayes could have helped then, the coaches would have kept him off the court anyway. That's just not logical.

Not sure how it can be considered a failure. Could it have been more successful? Possibly. But the Joshua Smith team (Along with the Sims/Hollis/Porter team 3 NBA players) went further than any team since the final four team in the NCAA tournament. The team and offense in particular ran well when you had DSR and Smith in. It basically collapsed if either guy came out for a breather or because of foul trouble.

I could really care less about how Smith played on the court (though in my opinion he was not good at all). My point was about bringing in an abjectly unmotivated mercenary who never justified the chance his coach took on him and who had not even a passing interest in academics, as expemplified by his failure to remain eligible his junior season and his disappearance after the NCAA tournament last season. It's not what the program uder JT3 has been about, thankfully. And I hope it never happens again.

[Deleted]

[hoyasaxa2003]

Dec 9, 2015 12:02:36 GMT -5 guru said:

I could really care less about how Smith played on the court (though in my opinion he was not good at all). My point was about bringing in an abjectly unmotivated mercenary who never justified the chance his coach took on him and who had not even a passing interest in academics, as expemplified by his failure to remain eligible his junior season and his disappearance after the NCAA tournament last season. It's not what the program uder JT3 has been about, thankfully. And I hope it never happens again.

I think the statistics contradict that Smith was "not good at all." I think the problem is that your argument benefits from hindsight.

As of 2013, the only real problem with Smith was that he was overweight and not conditioned. He remained academically eligible at UCLA. He was eligible out of high school, he always came across well in interviews, and he obviously had raw talent. In that context, why wouldn't you give somebody a second chance?