|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Sept 20, 2015 17:06:59 GMT -5
It's beginning to look more and more like things will come full circle and Bracey might be our second guard recruit... Yes please give me some Da Da....I know I'm in the minority on this board but I want Mr. Bracey.... If we can't win the battle for the 3 ranked guards left, Bracey would at least be a useful option.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Sept 20, 2015 18:03:48 GMT -5
It's beginning to look more and more like things will come full circle and Bracey might be our second guard recruit... Yes please give me some Da Da....I know I'm in the minority on this board but I want Mr. Bracey.... I prefer the other three top 100 guards we're still recruiting, but I wouldn't be disappointed at all to have Bracey as the consolation prize. He has the quickness and playmaking ability that very few guards at Gtown have had in the past 10 years.
|
|
fanofjack
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 133
|
Post by fanofjack on Sept 20, 2015 18:15:58 GMT -5
Yes please give me some Da Da....I know I'm in the minority on this board but I want Mr. Bracey.... I prefer the other three top 100 guards we're still recruiting, but I wouldn't be disappointed at all to have Bracey as the consolation prize. He has the quickness and playmaking ability that very few guards at Gtown have had in the past 10 years. His recruitment has really picked up since we told him to look elsewhere. I think this kid is better than he's been given credit for, and the pickup in interest from other high majors would seem to back that viewpoint up. If he senses that the staff views him as a distant 4th option at best, I can't imagine that coming here would hold much appeal. From what I've read elsewhere, he and GTown have parted ways and there won't be any re-kindling of his recruitment.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Sept 20, 2015 23:20:03 GMT -5
Yes please give me some Da Da....I know I'm in the minority on this board but I want Mr. Bracey.... I prefer the other three top 100 guards we're still recruiting, but I wouldn't be disappointed at all to have Bracey as the consolation prize. He has the quickness and playmaking ability that very few guards at Gtown have had in the past 10 years. I'd prefer a combo guard because Bracey and Campbell would basically force Jagan into playing shooting guard at Georgetown. If our goal is to get combo and point guards into the NBA (so 4-5 star combo/point guards take notice) then Jagan's best shot is as a point guard where he has superior measureables and size. Jagan himself said he wants to play point because he knows that's his best path to the league. This is also the reason that it's important to play DSR as much as possible at the point rather than tandeming him with Tre Campbell as the shooting guard because point guard/combo/third guard is the best shot for DSR in the league.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Sept 21, 2015 7:18:02 GMT -5
This is also the reason that it's important to play DSR as much as possible at the point rather than tandeming him with Tre Campbell as the shooting guard because point guard/combo/third guard is the best shot for DSR in the league. I disagree to a large extent. I think we certainly want to develop players but I also think we have an obligation to maximize our team performance, even if it means DSR plays shooting guard. In my opinion, DSR has always been best when he's off the ball and not playing point. Since we have a good point (Campbell), I think DSR is best utilized as a shooting guard for a majority of his minutes. The primary goal is not sending DSR to the NBA (remote likelihood regardless of what position he plays). It's for the team to win as many games as possible.
|
|
|
Post by BeantownHoya on Sept 21, 2015 7:35:33 GMT -5
This is also the reason that it's important to play DSR as much as possible at the point rather than tandeming him with Tre Campbell as the shooting guard because point guard/combo/third guard is the best shot for DSR in the league. I disagree to a large extent. I think we certainly want to develop players but I also think we have an obligation to maximize our team performance, even if it means DSR plays shooting guard. In my opinion, DSR has always been best when he's off the ball and not playing point. Since we have a good point (Campbell), I think DSR is best utilized as a shooting guard for a majority of his minutes. The primary goal is not sending DSR to the NBA (remote likelihood regardless of what position he plays). It's for the team to win as many games as possible. I don't disagree with your basis in terms of team performance but I am not sure I agree that DSR playing the 2 benefits this team the most. Where are you playing Peak then and how much if your promoting the idea of a Campbell and DSR backcourt? I personally don't feel playing Peak at the 3 maximizes this teams potential. A primary lineup of DSR, Peak, Cope, Derrickson, and Govan starting 5 w/the ability of being able to bring in Campbell, Kaleb, White, and Mourning/Agau/Hayes in my opionion is what best serves the team and maybe not the individual players.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,531
|
Post by prhoya on Sept 21, 2015 9:56:26 GMT -5
This is also the reason that it's important to play DSR as much as possible at the point rather than tandeming him with Tre Campbell as the shooting guard because point guard/combo/third guard is the best shot for DSR in the league. I disagree to a large extent. I think we certainly want to develop players but I also think we have an obligation to maximize our team performance, even if it means DSR plays shooting guard. ... The primary goal is not sending DSR to the NBA ( remote likelihood regardless of what position he plays). It's for the team to win as many games as possible. Agree with this. I know I look through Blue&Gray-colored glasses, but it seems that JT3 has tons of line-up options (as much or more than his best teams) and we shouldn't tie a player to a particular position. DSR will play some 1 and some 2, but should also get as much rest as possible.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Sept 21, 2015 12:12:40 GMT -5
This is also the reason that it's important to play DSR as much as possible at the point rather than tandeming him with Tre Campbell as the shooting guard because point guard/combo/third guard is the best shot for DSR in the league. I disagree to a large extent. I think we certainly want to develop players but I also think we have an obligation to maximize our team performance, even if it means DSR plays shooting guard. In my opinion, DSR has always been best when he's off the ball and not playing point. Since we have a good point (Campbell), I think DSR is best utilized as a shooting guard for a majority of his minutes. The primary goal is not sending DSR to the NBA (remote likelihood regardless of what position he plays). It's for the team to win as many games as possible. Depends. Alot of people on here are adamant that we need to get a combo/point guard into the league before 4/5 star combo/point guards start coming here. They say that is the primary factor why someone like Cujo chooses IU (history of getting combo guards to the league) over Georgetown. The best way to get the 4/5 star combo/point guards is to play our best guys at the position that they would have to play in the NBA and develop them there. So this would mean Peak at shooting guard instead of small forward, Copeland at small forward instead of power forward, and Mosely at point and not the two. Now if all you care about is the college performance and are okay with not getting 4/5 star combo/point guard recruits then play them at whatever position you want. You look at our guys who have made the NBA and they all have had prototypical NBA measureables. 6-9 Jeff Green (SF), 6-9 Otto Porter (SF), 7-2 Hibbert, 6-11 Henry Sims, 6-8 Hollis Thomson (SG). And in the case of Hollis and Hibbert superior size for their NBA position. If you look at someone like 6-3 Austin Freeman he's an undersized shooting guard or small forward at the NBA level and he primarily played small forward for us so that we could go Wright-Clark-Freeman. I guess my point is that 6-3 Jagan Mosely (6-9 wingspan) has superior NBA size and athleticism as a point guard comparable to that of John Wall, Westbrook, pre injury Derrick Rose but if you stick him at shooting guard he is undersized for the NBA. Jagan wants to play point (because he's smart enough to realize that's what he would have to play at the next level) and we've told him he will be brought here to play point/lead guard so there's no reason for us to bring in a guy who will move Jagan over to shooting guard. Right now, I think someone like Jagan who has ideal measureables that we can develop into a point is our best bet to get a combo/point to the NBA. If someone with Jagan's measureables already had superior point guard skills he would be a 5 star pg prospect and we would likley not be able to recruit him.
|
|
bkhoya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 117
|
Post by bkhoya on Sept 21, 2015 12:23:33 GMT -5
I agree with the above post about Mosely. If he were more developed as a point guard with his measureables he'd be a 5 star and we probably wouldn't be getting him. Georgetown is in a very precarious position now that they can't consistently pull in 5 stars so they're going to have to coach 'em up. Guys like Peak and Mosely are going to have to be developed over time in conjunction with team success and hopefully future NBA potential to have the program reclaim some of that traction its lost over the years. But simply put winning the league and advancing in the tournament has to come first and foremost. People will find reasons to attribute success if the program is winning overall.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Sept 21, 2015 15:27:40 GMT -5
Depends. Alot of people on here are adamant that we need to get a combo/point guard into the league before 4/5 star combo/point guards start coming here. They say that is the primary factor why someone like Cujo chooses IU (history of getting combo guards to the league) over Georgetown. The best way to get the 4/5 star combo/point guards is to play our best guys at the position that they would have to play in the NBA and develop them there. So this would mean Peak at shooting guard instead of small forward, Copeland at small forward instead of power forward, and Mosely at point and not the two. Now if all you care about is the college performance and are okay with not getting 4/5 star combo/point guard recruits then play them at whatever position you want. You look at our guys who have made the NBA and they all have had prototypical NBA measureables. 6-9 Jeff Green (SF), 6-9 Otto Porter (SF), 7-2 Hibbert, 6-11 Henry Sims, 6-8 Hollis Thomson (SG). And in the case of Hollis and Hibbert superior size for their NBA position. I am not sure this list really helps you. Hibbert and Sims primarily played the same position at Georgetown and in the NBA. As far as Jeff Green, he played plenty of PF at Georgetown, Porter played substantial minutes as a PF as well, and Hollis Thompson generally played SF. The fact is, Georgetown plays in the NCAA, not the NBA, and thus the "measurables" are different. Under your system, Tre Campbell would get limited minutes for the remainder of his tenure at Georgetown simply because there are bigger guards like DSR, or eventually, Mosely. Meanwhile, Tre Campbell was an excellent (and underrated) offensive player last year. Given the lack of guard depth, I know realistically Campbell will get time anyway, but the fact is DSR is not a point guard, he doesn't have athleticism you want to see in a point guard, and he's not going to make the NBA any more easily if he plays point. And even if he did make it (I don't think he will, but I know others differ), DSR isn't going to suddenly open the flood gates to 4 and 5 star guards. Someone who is a star like Allen Iverson could have that impact, but not somebody like DSR. Before people jump down my throat, I really, really, like DSR and think he is and will be a fantastic player for us. However, I think he should be doing what he does best - shooting - especially since nobody else on the team has been nearly as good.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Sept 21, 2015 15:30:12 GMT -5
One more thing. As many have noted, we do have plenty of guys playing in the NBA, and it hasn't started a flood of 4 and 5 star SFs and Centers (we had Hopkins playing center for three years...enough said). The idea that sending one guard to the NBA will make a huge difference is really overstated. There's a huge difference between sending someone like DaJuan Summers who barely hangs onto the NBA a few years, and sending somebody like Dwayne Wade or Wall who become stars.
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Sept 22, 2015 14:46:37 GMT -5
I agree with the above post about Mosely. If he were more developed as a point guard with his measureables he'd be a 5 star and we probably wouldn't be getting him. Georgetown is in a very precarious position now that they can't consistently pull in 5 stars so they're going to have to coach 'em up. Guys like Peak and Mosely are going to have to be developed over time in conjunction with team success and hopefully future NBA potential to have the program reclaim some of that traction its lost over the years. But simply put winning the league and advancing in the tournament has to come first and foremost. People will find reasons to attribute success if the program is winning overall. I'm not sure we are in a precarious position at all, and actually prefer the philosophy of focusing our recruiting efforts on the Top 40-150 type player and coaching'em up. If the staff is good at identifying skill on the come and honing it once the player arrives, there is no reason this strategy can't continue to work. The recruiting strategy leads to more kids playing 2-3-4 years, a team-oriented, supportive atmosphere, and likely more consistent results because you avoid the risk of one-and-done disruption (and loss of time/energy/resources recruiting a highly regarded flame-out if they don't pan out). Other than Greg Monroe and perhaps Austin Freeman, the Top 40-150 player has basically been JT3's bread-and-butter strategy since his arrival. It's nothing new for us and it is unlikely to change.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 22, 2015 20:22:01 GMT -5
I agree with the above post about Mosely. If he were more developed as a point guard with his measureables he'd be a 5 star and we probably wouldn't be getting him. Georgetown is in a very precarious position now that they can't consistently pull in 5 stars so they're going to have to coach 'em up. Guys like Peak and Mosely are going to have to be developed over time in conjunction with team success and hopefully future NBA potential to have the program reclaim some of that traction its lost over the years. But simply put winning the league and advancing in the tournament has to come first and foremost. People will find reasons to attribute success if the program is winning overall. I'm not sure we are in a precarious position at all, and actually prefer the philosophy of focusing our recruiting efforts on the Top 40-150 type player and coaching'em up. If the staff is good at identifying skill on the come and honing it once the player arrives, there is no reason this strategy can't continue to work. The recruiting strategy leads to more kids playing 2-3-4 years, a team-oriented, supportive atmosphere, and likely more consistent results because you avoid the risk of one-and-done disruption (and loss of time/energy/resources recruiting a highly regarded flame-out if they don't pan out). Other than Greg Monroe and perhaps Austin Freeman, the Top 40-150 player has basically been JT3's bread-and-butter strategy since his arrival. It's nothing new for us and it is unlikely to change. Yep. The issues we've had are more about depth and failure to develop. We're not going to recruit like a Kentucky or Arizona, as much as we'd like or think we're entitled to. We're not getting a bunch of 5 stars. And the schools that only get one once in a while often fail to capitalize -- they are one and done and often have such a weak supporting cast that the team does little.
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Sept 23, 2015 10:15:41 GMT -5
I'm not sure we are in a precarious position at all, and actually prefer the philosophy of focusing our recruiting efforts on the Top 40-150 type player and coaching'em up. If the staff is good at identifying skill on the come and honing it once the player arrives, there is no reason this strategy can't continue to work. The recruiting strategy leads to more kids playing 2-3-4 years, a team-oriented, supportive atmosphere, and likely more consistent results because you avoid the risk of one-and-done disruption (and loss of time/energy/resources recruiting a highly regarded flame-out if they don't pan out). Other than Greg Monroe and perhaps Austin Freeman, the Top 40-150 player has basically been JT3's bread-and-butter strategy since his arrival. It's nothing new for us and it is unlikely to change. Yep. The issues we've had are more about depth and failure to develop. We're not going to recruit like a Kentucky or Arizona, as much as we'd like or think we're entitled to. We're not getting a bunch of 5 stars. And the schools that only get one once in a while often fail to capitalize -- they are one and done and often have such a weak supporting cast that the team does little. I would rank depth more of a weakness than player development. By in large, I think the staff has done a very nice job of finding slightly ignored recruits and getting the most out of their ability. Unfortunately, Hopkins, Lubick, Hayes, and Joshua were 4 players who did not progress as much as we would have hoped, and that really crippled our front court the last few years. Aside from those players, almost everyone in JTIII's tenure improved over their time on the hilltop. Of the players who received significant minutes over the past decade+, I can think of only Jessie Sapp as a player who was not appreciably better as a junior/senior than as a frosh/soph, Freeman's illness and Wright's untimely injuries notwithstanding.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 23, 2015 11:07:32 GMT -5
Yep. The issues we've had are more about depth and failure to develop. We're not going to recruit like a Kentucky or Arizona, as much as we'd like or think we're entitled to. We're not getting a bunch of 5 stars. And the schools that only get one once in a while often fail to capitalize -- they are one and done and often have such a weak supporting cast that the team does little. I would rank depth more of a weakness than player development. By in large, I think the staff has done a very nice job of finding slightly ignored recruits and getting the most out of their ability. Unfortunately, Hopkins, Lubick, Hayes, and Joshua were 4 players who did not progress as much as we would have hoped, and that really crippled our front court the last few years. Aside from those players, almost everyone in JTIII's tenure improved over their time on the hilltop. Of the players who received significant minutes over the past decade+, I can think of only Jessie Sapp as a player who was not appreciably better as a junior/senior than as a frosh/soph, Freeman's illness and Wright's untimely injuries notwithstanding. Yes, the Hopkins/Lubick Group was what I was thinking in terms of development. Sapp was great his junior year and slumped Senior year.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Sept 23, 2015 11:32:26 GMT -5
Yep. The issues we've had are more about depth and failure to develop. We're not going to recruit like a Kentucky or Arizona, as much as we'd like or think we're entitled to. We're not getting a bunch of 5 stars. And the schools that only get one once in a while often fail to capitalize -- they are one and done and often have such a weak supporting cast that the team does little. I would rank depth more of a weakness than player development. By in large, I think the staff has done a very nice job of finding slightly ignored recruits and getting the most out of their ability. Unfortunately, Hopkins, Lubick, Hayes, and Joshua were 4 players who did not progress as much as we would have hoped, and that really crippled our front court the last few years. Aside from those players, almost everyone in JTIII's tenure improved over their time on the hilltop. Of the players who received significant minutes over the past decade+, I can think of only Jessie Sapp as a player who was not appreciably better as a junior/senior than as a frosh/soph, Freeman's illness and Wright's untimely injuries notwithstanding. There were two things that hurt us maybe the last 2-3 years. 1. We missed on our high recruit bigs, Lubick (4 star) and Hopkins (4 star) and basically had to live with their production or lack of for 4 years. Granted that Lubick was pretty good his freshman year but then fell apart when his outside shooting confidence eroded and people figured out he wouldn't shoot from the perimeter. Defensively Hopkins was pretty good but on offense he wasn't a scoring threat from outside or inside so that handcuffed the offense as well. And we missed on our projects. Moses (knee injuries had alot to do with it), Hayes, Bolden. Considering how vital the big is to an offense that uses Princeton principles the lack of a a scoring threat at the big made it impossible to really run the Princeton. 2. Academic suspensions. We tried to correct our problem recruiting bigs by bringing in Joshua Smith but then he gets suspended. And Whittington also gets suspended/kicked off two years in a row. So those are 1-2 lost seasons right there. Additionally, if you consider Benimmon any good, he probably never transfers if Whittington gets suspended before he left as the addition of Porter and Whittington is likely what led to Bennimon leaving. (the writing was on the wall that PT for him would be limited.) So the Hoyas basically lost both Whittington and Bennimon during that same period. So if you look at all that the main problem during that time was our huge misses with recruiting the bigs, not the guards (who were solid with Markel and DSR). It's actually quite amazing that we were still able to get into the top 25 and make the tournaments considering all the recruiting misses with the bigmen and the academic suspensions.
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,837
|
Post by hoyazeke on Sept 23, 2015 11:59:04 GMT -5
OK, I get it. Most on the site don't want Bracey but can we either get back on Bracey or move this topic somewhere else? I keep coming here expecting something about Da Da and getting info about past team problems....
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Sept 23, 2015 12:35:31 GMT -5
I feel Bracey is still a viable option if we whiff on Woods, Brown and Norvell.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,531
|
Post by prhoya on Sept 23, 2015 13:10:51 GMT -5
Yep. The issues we've had are more about depth and failure to develop. We're not going to recruit like a Kentucky or Arizona, as much as we'd like or think we're entitled to. We're not getting a bunch of 5 stars. And the schools that only get one once in a while often fail to capitalize -- they are one and done and often have such a weak supporting cast that the team does little. I would rank depth more of a weakness than player development. By in large, I think the staff has done a very nice job of finding slightly ignored recruits and getting the most out of their ability. Unfortunately, Hopkins, Lubick, Hayes, and Joshua were 4 players who did not progress as much as we would have hoped, and that really crippled our front court the last few years. Aside from those players, almost everyone in JTIII's tenure improved over their time on the hilltop. Of the players who received significant minutes over the past decade+, I can think of only Jessie Sapp as a player who was not appreciably better as a junior/senior than as a frosh/soph, Freeman's illness and Wright's untimely injuries notwithstanding. Hayes shouldn't be lumped with the others. He was a late signing and not the recruiting prospect the others were. He was taken that May as a project. He was never intended to be the starter or close to it from Day 1. Finally, lets see him finish his career before passing judgment. On a side note, JT3 is more careful with that last one (or two) scholarship these days. But back to Bracey...
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Sept 23, 2015 14:53:30 GMT -5
Well, I disagree on Hayes. I was not lumping Hayes in with the others because I thought he came in with high expectations and failed to meet them (as with Hopkins, Lubick, and to a certain extent Joshua). Hayes, indeed, was recruited as a project, but I would say that there has been very little progress shown on the court (in fact, he has received precious few meaningful minutes in his career).
Yes, he has time left to improve and make a positive impact, but to date, even as a project, he has not improved enough to where he can contribute in a meaningful way and/or be trusted with real minutes.
But, we digress. Back to Bracey, who scores very low on the Ranch Dressing Cinder Block Height Analysis(TM)...
|
|