BET Semis 3/14/15: Georgetown - Xavier Discussion

[Deleted]

Mar 14, 2015 17:43:57 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

Mar 14, 2015 16:48:06 GMT -5 @yaboynyp said:

I mean the simple answer to this is Not every player develops at the rate of the above examples… They will be touted because it strengthens your point but what about the players that don’t progress as much you would like or go in the opposite direction? What about Pinkston, he was a Burger boy, Corey Stokes, Ty Johnson, Armwood, and Cheek another top 20 kid.. Heck Mouph was 12 RSCI

Every coach has those as well..

Ok forget comparisons then..

In the end my question to you, Sleepy, 2003 or whomever are you satisfied with player development over the last few seasons?

I'm not personally..

Yes….

Otto didn’t come in the 3rd best prospect in College, he went out that way.

Bowen has progressed into a reliable bench guy

Brill has progressed, major leaps in his outside shooting and decision making on drives

Starks went from 6 min as a Frosh to all BE 1st team

Hop has improved his defense immensely over 4 seasons in my view

DSR has become a leader and silenced many of our concerns about him being able to run a team


On the other side I would say the only player I was truly disappointed with was Lubick…



This discussion really comes down to what expectations you have for said players though.

[DanMcQ]

Mar 14, 2015 18:04:53 GMT -5 @yaboynyp said:

Mar 14, 2015 17:43:57 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

Ok forget comparisons then..

In the end my question to you, Sleepy, 2003 or whomever are you satisfied with player development over the last few seasons?

I'm not personally..

This discussion really comes down to what expectations you have for said players though.

Pretty much the genesis of 75-76 Indiana comment up thread.

[Just Cos]

Preseason expectations:
- Finish #2 in conference: check
- Make the NCAA tournament: check

Did I miss anything?

Would it be nice to win the BET or make the second weekend of the NCAA tournament? Sure, but those were not my expectations before the season.

I will expect us to win Thursday or Friday but it will not define this season or my opinion on III as our head coach.

[bmartin]

For Georgetown this season it really is mostly about whether our shots are falling.

Effective FG% > 50% 16 wins, 1 loss (Wisconsin)
Effective FG% < 50% 5 wins, 9 losses (2 to 6 point wins over Charlotte, DePaul, Marquette, Butler, Creighton)

How well we shot was more determinative than how well our opponents' shot, but this is not true for everyone. For Xavier, holding opponents under 50% efg was more important than shooting over 50%.

[prhoya]

Mar 14, 2015 17:21:12 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

For the record, I am extremely disappointed with our post-season success. I am not happy about it one bit and complain (to actual people - off this board) all the time. The thing is, your arguments are basically that if we defend the team or the coaching staff that we are apologists who are content with what has happened.

One can support the coaching staff and still be displeased with the way things go. I think the problem is that some people are reflexive and basically want to take drastic measures (like firing a coach) everytime something negative happens, which is silly in my view.

Agree, so how does GU fix post-season woes? To fix it, we must determine the problem or problems that need to be corrected. What to do?

[sleepy]

Mar 14, 2015 18:51:11 GMT -5 bmartin said:

For Georgetown this season it really is mostly about whether our shots are falling.

Effective FG% > 50% 16 wins, 1 loss (Wisconsin)
Effective FG% < 50% 5 wins, 9 losses (2 to 6 point wins over Charlotte, DePaul, Marquette, Butler, Creighton)

How well we shot was more determinative than how well our opponents' shot, but this is not true for everyone. For Xavier, holding opponents under 50% efg was more important than shooting over 50%.

But how well we shot is determined by what kind of shots we get. I think it all goes back to ball movement, or lack there of at times.

[EtomicB]

Mar 14, 2015 18:04:53 GMT -5 @yaboynyp said:

Mar 14, 2015 17:43:57 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

Ok forget comparisons then..

In the end my question to you, Sleepy, 2003 or whomever are you satisfied with player development over the last few seasons?

I'm not personally..

Yes….

Otto didn’t come in the 3rd best prospect in College, he went out that way.

Bowen has progressed into a reliable bench guy

Brill has progressed, major leaps in his outside shooting and decision making on drives

Starks went from 6 min as a Frosh to all BE 1st team

Hop has improved his defense immensely over 4 seasons in my view

DSR has become a leader and silenced many of our concerns about him being able to run a team


On the other side I would say the only player I was truly disappointed with was Lubick…



This discussion really comes down to what expectations you have for said players though.

Otto was crazy underrated, we all knew he was a star in the making from day 1.. That's not to say the staff didn't have a hand in his development but we know that he was/is a gifted kid.

Starks didn't play because of Wright & Clark in front of him..

You didn't expect Hopkins to be more than a defensive stopper in his time at G'town? Honestly I thought he'd be the opposite, more offense then defense..

DSR become a lead guard is a win for the staff, Jabril too but I can't give you Bowen..

[sleepy]

Mar 14, 2015 19:00:46 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

Mar 14, 2015 18:04:53 GMT -5 @yaboynyp said:

Yes….

Otto didn’t come in the 3rd best prospect in College, he went out that way.

Bowen has progressed into a reliable bench guy

Brill has progressed, major leaps in his outside shooting and decision making on drives

Starks went from 6 min as a Frosh to all BE 1st team

Hop has improved his defense immensely over 4 seasons in my view

DSR has become a leader and silenced many of our concerns about him being able to run a team


On the other side I would say the only player I was truly disappointed with was Lubick…



This discussion really comes down to what expectations you have for said players though.

Otto was crazy underrated, we all knew he was a star in the making from day 1.. That's not to say the staff didn't have a hand in his development but we know that he was/is a gifted kid.

Starks didn't play because of Wright & Clark in front of him..

You didn't expect Hopkins to be more than a defensive stopper in his time at G'town? Honestly I thought he'd be the opposite, more offense then defense..

DSR become a lead guard is a win for the staff, Jabril too but I can't give you Bowen..

This isn't directly related to the conversation but something I have noticed quite a bit. I think people really overrate Otto as a freshman. He was good but he wasn't THAT good. I think as freshman, Copeland has more clear talent and ability. Otto wasn't even on the Big East all freshman team, which was a silly decision, but I think it proves the point he wasn't looking like he was a year away from the lottery, let alone a top 3 pick. I think we all need to go back and watch the 2012 team again.


But back to the point, how can you argue that a player having talent takes away from the development of that talent. You said he was a star in the making, which means the staff had to help make him into said star. Are they only allowed to take credit for developing players without talent? Thats preposterous as it is extremely difficult and rare. There are plenty of talented players and stars in the making not developing on plenty of teams across the country. Don't take our ability to develop talent for granted.

[njhoya78]

Mar 14, 2015 19:00:32 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Mar 14, 2015 18:51:11 GMT -5 bmartin said:

For Georgetown this season it really is mostly about whether our shots are falling.

Effective FG% > 50% 16 wins, 1 loss (Wisconsin)
Effective FG% < 50% 5 wins, 9 losses (2 to 6 point wins over Charlotte, DePaul, Marquette, Butler, Creighton)

How well we shot was more determinative than how well our opponents' shot, but this is not true for everyone. For Xavier, holding opponents under 50% efg was more important than shooting over 50%.

But how well we shot is determined by what kind of shots we get. I think it all goes back to ball movement, or lack there of at times.

It's not just ball movement. Our offense gets stagnant when the Hoyas stop moving around. It's easy to defend a stationary object. We need more cutters going through the lane, presenting themselves at the elbow for passes against the zone. When Copeland or White has gotten to the elbow, good things have happened.

[sleepy]

Mar 14, 2015 19:11:17 GMT -5 njhoya78 said:

Mar 14, 2015 19:00:32 GMT -5 sleepy said:

But how well we shot is determined by what kind of shots we get. I think it all goes back to ball movement, or lack there of at times.

It's not just ball movement. Our offense gets stagnant when the Hoyas stop moving around. It's easy to defend a stationary object. We need more cutters going through the lane, presenting themselves at the elbow for passes against the zone. When Copeland or White has gotten to the elbow, good things have happened.

Very true, player movement is also an issue. Not just how much we move but where we move. If Josh Smith is being double, that means someone else is wide open. It would be nice if that someone would cut to open space to receive a pass every now and then.

[EtomicB]

Mar 14, 2015 19:09:56 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Mar 14, 2015 19:00:46 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

Otto was crazy underrated, we all knew he was a star in the making from day 1.. That's not to say the staff didn't have a hand in his development but we know that he was/is a gifted kid.

Starks didn't play because of Wright & Clark in front of him..

You didn't expect Hopkins to be more than a defensive stopper in his time at G'town? Honestly I thought he'd be the opposite, more offense then defense..

DSR become a lead guard is a win for the staff, Jabril too but I can't give you Bowen..

This isn't directly related to the conversation but something I have noticed quite a bit. I think people really overrate Otto as a freshman. He was good but he wasn't THAT good. I think as freshman, Copeland has more clear talent and ability. Otto wasn't even on the Big East all freshman team, which was a silly decision, but I think it proves the point he wasn't looking like he was a year away from the lottery, let alone a top 3 pick. I think we all need to go back and watch the 2012 team again.


But back to the point, how can you argue that a player having talent takes away from the development of that talent. You said he was a star in the making, which means the staff had to help make him into said star. Are they only allowed to take credit for developing players without talent? Thats preposterous as it is extremely difficult and rare. There are plenty of talented players and stars in the making not developing on plenty of teams across the country. Don't take our ability to develop talent for granted.

I can't speak for anyone else but Otto was very good his 1st year here and outside of him shooting 42% from 3 in his 2nd season, I wasn't surprised with the year he had..

Let's be real Otto averaged 16.2 ppg & 7.5rpg his Soph year, those are very good stats but not ridiculous.. He went high in the draft based off his potential, not his stats.. I'll add that game versus Cuse in the dome probably was a big help also..

Sleepy, I stated that staff had a hand in his development.. Not sure why you're posting this..

[guru]

I was one who wanted another shot at Xavier at MSG but at this point count me out. It's clear as day that they are tougher, smarter and far, far better-coached than we are. This is no longer an arguable point - Xavier is better than us. Want nothing to do with them until next season.

[guru]

Also, watching this Villanova team this weekend, I honestly have no idea how we blew them out in DC. Has to be one of the strangest results of the college hoops season. They are far and away the best team in the conference. Really impressive. Hope they carry the big east banner a long way into March and April.

[sleepy]

Mar 14, 2015 19:31:57 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

Mar 14, 2015 19:09:56 GMT -5 sleepy said:

This isn't directly related to the conversation but something I have noticed quite a bit. I think people really overrate Otto as a freshman. He was good but he wasn't THAT good. I think as freshman, Copeland has more clear talent and ability. Otto wasn't even on the Big East all freshman team, which was a silly decision, but I think it proves the point he wasn't looking like he was a year away from the lottery, let alone a top 3 pick. I think we all need to go back and watch the 2012 team again.


But back to the point, how can you argue that a player having talent takes away from the development of that talent. You said he was a star in the making, which means the staff had to help make him into said star. Are they only allowed to take credit for developing players without talent? Thats preposterous as it is extremely difficult and rare. There are plenty of talented players and stars in the making not developing on plenty of teams across the country. Don't take our ability to develop talent for granted.

I can't speak for anyone else but Otto was very good his 1st year here and outside of him shooting 42% from 3 I wasn't surprised with the year he had.. Let's be real Otto averaged 16.2 ppg & 7.5rpg his Soph year, those are very good stats but not ridiculous.. He went high in the draft based off his potential, not his stats..

Sleepy, I stated that staff had a hand in his development.. Not sure why you're posting this..

Yes you said they had a hand in his development, but you included a but. My first paragraph, as I stated wasn't directed at you. My second one still holds, you can't hold a player's talent against the staff when judging their development. Otto reached his potential as a college player here, and more so, that is what developing talent is all about. It's not a fair expectation to have of the staff to make players exceed their potential as that is very very rare and nearly impossible. I posted that because you simply cannot hold having talented players against the staff when it comes to developing talent. There are plenty of equally talented players in college basketball that never develop. A big part of development is putting players in a position to succeed. He has clearly done that judging on his track record of getting guys into the NBA and it's not like we dominate the recruiting rankings every single year either. I just don't know what more you want from a player development aspect. You can't expect perfection but we really are quite good at developing talent when you look around at other college programs.

[rockhoya]

Mar 14, 2015 19:31:57 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

Mar 14, 2015 19:09:56 GMT -5 sleepy said:

This isn't directly related to the conversation but something I have noticed quite a bit. I think people really overrate Otto as a freshman. He was good but he wasn't THAT good. I think as freshman, Copeland has more clear talent and ability. Otto wasn't even on the Big East all freshman team, which was a silly decision, but I think it proves the point he wasn't looking like he was a year away from the lottery, let alone a top 3 pick. I think we all need to go back and watch the 2012 team again.


But back to the point, how can you argue that a player having talent takes away from the development of that talent. You said he was a star in the making, which means the staff had to help make him into said star. Are they only allowed to take credit for developing players without talent? Thats preposterous as it is extremely difficult and rare. There are plenty of talented players and stars in the making not developing on plenty of teams across the country. Don't take our ability to develop talent for granted.

I can't speak for anyone else but Otto was very good his 1st year here and outside of him shooting 42% from 3 in his 2nd season, I wasn't surprised with the year he had..

Let's be real Otto averaged 16.2 ppg & 7.5rpg his Soph year, those are very good stats but not ridiculous.. He went high in the draft based off his potential, not his stats.. I'll add that game versus Cuse in the dome probably was a big help also..

Sleepy, I stated that staff had a hand in his development.. Not sure why you're posting this..

Probably because people are acting like they saw his soph year jump coming from the time he was a frosh. If that was the case then we probably should've expected Dajuan and Whitt to be top 5 picks after their soph years and Ike and Paul (1st half of the season Paul) too based on how they produced their first years..

[EtomicB]

Mar 14, 2015 19:47:39 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Mar 14, 2015 19:31:57 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

I can't speak for anyone else but Otto was very good his 1st year here and outside of him shooting 42% from 3 I wasn't surprised with the year he had.. Let's be real Otto averaged 16.2 ppg & 7.5rpg his Soph year, those are very good stats but not ridiculous.. He went high in the draft based off his potential, not his stats..

Sleepy, I stated that staff had a hand in his development.. Not sure why you're posting this..

Yes you said they had a hand in his development, but you included a but. My first paragraph, as I stated wasn't directed at you. My second one still holds, you can't hold a player's talent against the staff when judging their development. Otto reached his potential as a college player here, and more so, that is what developing talent is all about. It's not a fair expectation to have of the staff to make players exceed their potential as that is very very rare and nearly impossible. I posted that because you simply cannot hold having talented players against the staff when it comes to developing talent. There are plenty of equally talented players in college basketball that never develop. A big part of development is putting players in a position to succeed. He has clearly done that judging on his track record of getting guys into the NBA and it's not like we dominate the recruiting rankings every single year either. I just don't know what more you want from a player development aspect. You can't expect perfection but we really are quite good at developing talent when you look around at other college programs.

When have I or anyone else expected this? Definitely not what I'm looking for..

Bottom line to me is the program has had big holes over the last few seasons that has held it back, I'd like to see those big holes become smaller ones over time especially on the offensive side of the ball..

Having essential players like Nate, Hop, Moses & Bowen continue to be huge liabilities on offense after 4 seasons in the program is not a good look imo.. Did Otto, Starks, jabril ect.. get better absolutely but as we've seen that hasn't been enough to get the team over the top..

Neither is bringing in 4 players in 2012 & 13 that probably didn't play 100 minutes combined between them..

In fairness the staff has started to rebuild with the last 2 classes and I believe it will continue in 2016..

[sleepy]

Mar 14, 2015 21:02:59 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

Mar 14, 2015 19:47:39 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Yes you said they had a hand in his development, but you included a but. My first paragraph, as I stated wasn't directed at you. My second one still holds, you can't hold a player's talent against the staff when judging their development. Otto reached his potential as a college player here, and more so, that is what developing talent is all about. It's not a fair expectation to have of the staff to make players exceed their potential as that is very very rare and nearly impossible. I posted that because you simply cannot hold having talented players against the staff when it comes to developing talent. There are plenty of equally talented players in college basketball that never develop. A big part of development is putting players in a position to succeed. He has clearly done that judging on his track record of getting guys into the NBA and it's not like we dominate the recruiting rankings every single year either. I just don't know what more you want from a player development aspect. You can't expect perfection but we really are quite good at developing talent when you look around at other college programs.

When have I or anyone else expected this? Definitely not what I'm looking for..

Bottom line to me is the program has had big holes over the last few seasons that has held it back, I'd like to see those big holes become smaller ones over time especially on the offensive side of the ball..

Having essential players like Nate, Hop, Moses & Bowen continue to be huge liabilities on offense after 4 seasons in the program is not a good look imo.. Did Otto, Starks, jabril ect.. get better absolutely but as we've seen that hasn't been enough to get the team over the top..

Neither is bringing in 4 players in 2012 & 13 that probably didn't play 100 minutes combined between them..

In fairness the staff has started to rebuild with the last 2 classes and I believe it will continue in 2016..

I'm not arguing the issues I'm arguing the cause. It seems to be a recruiting issue rather than a player development problem. I don't think any other program was going to get more offensive production out of Bowen, Hopkins, Nate or Moses. I think maybe Bowen could have been used more effectively over the years but as far as skill development I don't see that as a Georgetown specific issue for him. There were also some injuries in there which didn't exactly help things. We all agree there were roster problem, I just think they were caused by recruiting misses, lack of backup plans from the coaching staff, and unexpected turnover; not lack of player development. You can only do so much with what you have.

[justsaying]

fear inducing (Ewing,Graham): legend of doom (morning, mutombo); tenacity and slicks(Reggie and Wingate); never quit(Iverson, Paige); smarts and versatility (hibbert and green); be nice to get that next game changer(s)

[drquigley]

Not to change the subject but did you notice how accurate the studio experts were after our game. They all predicted that Xavier would upset Nova. My buddy and I looked at each other and laughed. I guess they have to generate some excitement for FS1 and the championship game but Nova is the real deal. For them to make that statement was ridiculous.

[hoyazeke]

Mar 14, 2015 19:44:27 GMT -5 guru said:

Also, watching this Villanova team this weekend, I honestly have no idea how we blew them out in DC. Has to be one of the strangest results of the college hoops season. They are far and away the best team in the conference. Really impressive. Hope they carry the big east banner a long way into March and April.

I don't remember if it was one defender in particular but we shut Hilliard and Pinkston down that game. They played horribly and at that time Hart wasn't the player he is now. Hart, Jenkins, Ennis and Booth were all role players that added a little on both ends of the floor but they weren't making up for a bad night from Hilliard and Pinkston. I was really looking forward to finding out if we were a bad matchup for Nova or not because even at Nova they didn't beat us the way they are beating other teams.