This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,596
|
Post by This Just In on Dec 9, 2015 14:24:46 GMT -5
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? Do you consider the Josh Smith experiment an success? |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 9, 2015 14:33:47 GMT -5
Do you consider the Josh Smith experiment an success? Define "success".  |
|
|
|
Post by michaeldm9 on Dec 9, 2015 14:44:26 GMT -5
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. Couldn't have said it any better!!!!!!! |
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,596
|
Post by This Just In on Dec 9, 2015 14:52:51 GMT -5
Do you consider the Josh Smith experiment an success? Define "success". For each individual it is a different measure. I wanted to get his perception of the experiment. I will ask you the same question.. Do you consider the Josh Smith experiment a success? |
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Dec 9, 2015 15:00:32 GMT -5
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!! Trey played when we had foul trouble and Hayes was ineffective against Duke and he played when we had big leads over cupcakes. He won't play much in conference and every Tim we lose or win close somebody will come on here and say he would have scored and rebounded and defended better than whoever struggled in that game. |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 9, 2015 15:14:33 GMT -5
Define "success". For each individual it is a different measure. I wanted to get his perception of the experiment. I will ask you the same question.. Do you consider the Josh Smith experiment a success? Do you? |
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Dec 9, 2015 15:22:25 GMT -5
Define "success". For each individual it is a different measure. I wanted to get his perception of the experiment. I will ask you the same question.. Do you consider the Josh Smith experiment a success? I personally consider it pretty much a wash if you consider the fact that, at the time, it was viewed as the most positive addition to our frontcourt and I'm sure he made our other bigs better just by virtue of going head to head everyday in practice. Also, he's pretty much had the most professional success of a post player that we've had since Monroe. Yes, he's not in the NBA yet, but he really did so very narrowly miss out on the 15th spot for a NBA contender. Sure he wasn't all that engaged in his academics, but I think it would have been naive to expect that to change much after what happened at UCLA. I do hunk he could've been a better representative of the Thompson tradition, but he is a very polite young man who is no different than many college students out there struggling to find themselves. And for those who point to his transformation after leaving GU as evidence that he didn't work hard enough while here, just remember all he other things he has on his plate on a student. It isn't always easy for everyone, student-athlete or not. |
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by guru on Dec 9, 2015 15:37:23 GMT -5
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? He left UCLA on strange terms, midway through his junior season and after a very disappointing sophomore season - though admittedly that was a bad time out there under Howland. My argument may benefit from hindsight, but I was consistent in my distaste for his attitude and fit for this program. The fact is he turned out just as badly as I expected. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 9, 2015 15:42:55 GMT -5
Do you consider the Josh Smith experiment an success? First, I don't consider it an "experiment." We basically picked up a mid-season transfer in 2013 that was not unlike any other mid-season transfer. I mean, how much different was he than Agau when we signed both of them? Both were mid-season transfers. At the time of enrolling at Georgetown, neither had any known academic problems. The only real difference was Smith was overweight, and Smith came from a program in turmoil (Howland, UCLA). As others have said, what defines "success"? Did he make the team better when he was on the court? I would argue that yes, he did. In fact, I think his being academically ineligible probably cost us the NCAA tournament in 2014. That can only be true if he added to the on court success. Statistically, Smith was arguably the second best offensive player we had in both 2014 (when he was eligible) and 2015. Given that our team struggled on offense, I definitely think he helped. I think people are also too quick to tar Smith as being a bad person because of his academic ineligibility. Clearly, you want to see kids succeed, but as Greg Whittington showed, that sometimes doesn't happen, even for guys that you directly recruit from high school. The real risk to Smith was his conditioning, which did improve over time, though maybe not as much as we would have liked to see. There was no demonstrated character/academic risk when Smith enrolled. Any arguments to the contrary rely on hindsight. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 9, 2015 15:46:14 GMT -5
He left UCLA on strange terms, midway through his junior season and after a very disappointing sophomore season - though admittedly that was a bad time out there under Howland. My argument may benefit from hindsight, but I was consistent in my distaste for his attitude and fit for this program. The fact is he turned out just as badly as I expected. Is this really all that different from Agau's situation? He also left midway through his sophomore season after not playing all that much. Pitino's program wasn't under the same turmoil Howland experienced, though in retrospect, Pitino's program wasn't squeaky clean either. I have no reason to doubt Agau is a great guy. I am just saying that it's easy to make judgments on Smith now that time is passed. Whether taking Smith in was the "right" move really needs to be judged by information and needs in 2013, not 2015. EDIT: One more thought. I think with Smith, people had a tendency to assume he was lazy because he was overweight. I don't personally equate being overweight with being lazy, because it's not as easy as people always insist it is, but I do think it's a bias some people had against Smith from the beginning. |
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by guru on Dec 9, 2015 15:49:37 GMT -5
Do you consider the Josh Smith experiment an success? First, I don't consider it an "experiment." We basically picked up a mid-season transfer in 2013 that was not unlike any other mid-season transfer. I mean, how much different was he than Agau when we signed both of them? Both were mid-season transfers. At the time of enrolling at Georgetown, neither had any known academic problems. The only real difference was Smith was overweight, and Smith came from a program in turmoil (Howland, UCLA). As others have said, what defines "success"? Did he make the team better when he was on the court? I would argue that yes, he did. In fact, I think his being academically ineligible probably cost us the NCAA tournament in 2014. That can only be true if he added to the on court success. Statistically, Smith was arguably the second best offensive player we had in both 2014 (when he was eligible) and 2015. Given that our team struggled on offense, I definitely think he helped. I think people are also too quick to tar Smith as being a bad person because of his academic ineligibility. Clearly, you want to see kids succeed, but as Greg Whittington showed, that sometimes doesn't happen, even for guys that you directly recruit from high school. The real risk to Smith was his conditioning, which did improve over time, though maybe not as much as we would have liked to see. There was no demonstrated character/academic risk when Smith enrolled. Any arguments to the contrary rely on hindsight. Did you follow his career at UCLA? There were constant maturity issues. No one is saying the kid had no character or was into really bad stuff - just that he had demonstrated enough immaturity and lack of self discipline to be a questionable add to the program. It was a desperation move by JT3 - and it didn't work out. You have not dealt with the fact that Smith didn't just "not succeed" academically - he abandoned school entirely as soon as the basketball season ended. That is Syracuse-level stuff. I mean, come on. |
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by guru on Dec 9, 2015 15:50:53 GMT -5
He left UCLA on strange terms, midway through his junior season and after a very disappointing sophomore season - though admittedly that was a bad time out there under Howland. My argument may benefit from hindsight, but I was consistent in my distaste for his attitude and fit for this program. The fact is he turned out just as badly as I expected. Is this really all that different from Agau's situation? He also left midway through his sophomore season after not playing all that much. Pitino's program wasn't under the same turmoil Howland experienced, though in retrospect, Pitino's program wasn't squeaky clean either. I have no reason to doubt Agau is a great guy. I am just saying that it's easy to make judgments on Smith now that time is passed. Whether taking Smith in was the "right" move really needs to be judged by information and needs in 2013, not 2015. This stuff is really easy to look up. There were many, many stories written about immaturity issues surrounding Smith as he left UCLA. I can't recall anything like that about Agau. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 9, 2015 15:54:04 GMT -5
Did you follow his career at UCLA? There were constant maturity issues. No one is saying the kid had no character or was into really bad stuff - just that he had demonstrated enough immaturity and lack of self discipline to be a questionable add to the program. It was a desperation move by JT3 - and it didn't work out. You have not dealt with the fact that Smith didn't just "not succeed" academically - he abandoned school entirely as soon as the basketball season ended. That is Syracuse-level stuff. I mean, come on. No, I did not follow his UCLA career closely, but I did read about him when he was a transfer, and I do not recall all that you're saying. I don't know what "maturity issues" means. If "immaturity" and "lack of self disclipline" equals being overweight, then I disagree. For some people, it's not as simple as eating less and jogging more. I mean, Smith has the benefit now of being a professional player (i.e., he can devote all of his time to playing) and more resources, and while he's lost more weight, he's still not even close to ideal size. As far as him abandoning school, I think that was horrible and extremely disappointing. There really is no excuse for that, and I definitely view him much more negatively as a result. But still, how do you know he was going to do that back in 2013? It's easy to say "oh, there were signs back then" but that's because we know what happened afterward. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Dec 9, 2015 15:57:55 GMT -5
This stuff is really easy to look up. There were many, many stories written about immaturity issues surrounding Smith as he left UCLA. I can't recall anything like that about Agau. True, but there were also a LOT of stories about how that UCLA program was an absolute hellhole under Howland. A good example is this piece in Sports Illustrated which covers both Smith's immaturity and the Lord of the Flies atmosphere at UCLA during his time there. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 9, 2015 16:01:16 GMT -5
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by guru on Dec 9, 2015 16:15:13 GMT -5
Did you follow his career at UCLA? There were constant maturity issues. No one is saying the kid had no character or was into really bad stuff - just that he had demonstrated enough immaturity and lack of self discipline to be a questionable add to the program. It was a desperation move by JT3 - and it didn't work out. You have not dealt with the fact that Smith didn't just "not succeed" academically - he abandoned school entirely as soon as the basketball season ended. That is Syracuse-level stuff. I mean, come on. No, I did not follow his UCLA career closely, but I did read about him when he was a transfer, and I do not recall all that you're saying. I don't know what "maturity issues" means. If "immaturity" and "lack of self disclipline" equals being overweight, then I disagree. For some people, it's not as simple as eating less and jogging more. I mean, Smith has the benefit now of being a professional player (i.e., he can devote all of his time to playing) and more resources, and while he's lost more weight, he's still not even close to ideal size. As far as him abandoning school, I think that was horrible and extremely disappointing. There really is no excuse for that, and I definitely view him much more negatively as a result. But still, how do you know he was going to do that back in 2013? It's easy to say "oh, there were signs back then" but that's because we know what happened afterward. My point is I said it from the start - not sure why you are harping on "hindsight." There were signs that Smith would turn out exactly as embarrassingly as he did. My initial statement was that Josh Smith - from the time we brought him in to the moment he bolted from school without finishing any of his classes after the Utah game buzzer sounded - was one of the great mistakes of the JT3 era. That's my opinion. |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,604
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 9, 2015 16:38:10 GMT -5
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. I respect your opinion, and yes nothing can be done about this now. The 5 mpg provide several benefits exhaustively discussed in the previous pages. Again, it's speculation, but the counter to your position that his impact would have been minimal is that maybe, for example, it could've turned out to be like the NCAA game where his play inspired a better offensive performance form Hops (4 TOs excluded). That said, play Trey! |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,604
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 9, 2015 16:41:12 GMT -5
Also, he's pretty much had the most professional success of a post player that we've had since Monroe. Sims? |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,604
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 9, 2015 16:45:46 GMT -5
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!! Trey played when we had foul trouble and Hayes was ineffective against Duke and he played when we had big leads over cupcakes. He won't play much in conference and every Tim we lose or win close somebody will come on here and say he would have scored and rebounded and defended better than whoever struggled in that game. Perfect use by JT3 instead of exposing his players to foul trouble or using a White or Derrickson, when he has Trey! We'll see how much he plays in conference, but Tournament history has shown that our bigs get into foul trouble. Another experienced option would be fantastic. |
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 9, 2015 16:54:30 GMT -5
Trey played when we had foul trouble and Hayes was ineffective against Duke and he played when we had big leads over cupcakes. He won't play much in conference and every Tim we lose or win close somebody will come on here and say he would have scored and rebounded and defended better than whoever struggled in that game. Perfect use by JT3 instead of exposing his players to foul trouble or using a White or Derrickson, when he has Trey! We'll see how much he plays in conference, but Tournament history has shown that our bigs get into foul trouble. Another experienced option would be fantastic. But this is the crux of it. No one argues about those scenarios. The issue is what to do in the following: We are playing Villanova. Big game. Brad plays the first ten minutes and is playing great. No foul issues. No turnovers. Etc. Coach puts in Jesse. And, lo and behold, he plays great too! We now have five minutes left in the first half of a tie game with Villanova. Stick with Jesse? Go back to Brad? Or throw Trey out there? Me? Either door one or two works. But playing Trey there makes no sense. It could well cost us the game. Might not. But there's a clear option available with far less risk. Mine is an extreme example of course, but I think your position has to be to play Trey there. Or else it falls apart logically. You can come up with tweaks to the hypo, but Coach's decision in a competitive game will always be along these lines. And should be. I will now return to my promise to ignore this thread.... |
|
) on the roster. Go Hoyas!!