njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,823
|
Post by njhoya78 on Mar 14, 2015 22:09:31 GMT -5
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. Well, O'Neill is as accurate as ever. He did call for DePaul winning against Xavier, and then to beat us. I hear he has North Florida beating Kentucky next Thursday. |
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Mar 14, 2015 22:12:10 GMT -5
Why are there posters who haven't been here all season who suddenly pop up to declare this season is a failure? March Madness. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,396
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 14, 2015 22:26:51 GMT -5
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. You accused me of not giving the staff the credit it deserved for developing talented players but it seems to me you refuse to give them any of the blame for less talented players not progressing in all phases of the game.. Otto turning into a lottery pick is good for the staff but Nate not being able to take a jumper(note I said take not make)is a recruiting issue? |
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,681
|
Post by tashoya on Mar 14, 2015 22:32:15 GMT -5
Jeez. Is it the off-season already?
Rewatched the Xavier game. The parts that were incredibly painful remained just as painful. But for those that suggested that the team lacked effort or fire, you apparently watched a different game than I did. For a team with more options to score the ball than we had last year, we've had some odd droughts by multiple guys in the same games. That was the case last night for most of it. If Isaac hits one or two of the multiple baseline looks he had (and got really easily), things look a bit different. I didn't expect him to miss one of them going up and, yet, he did. That's probably on the coach according to some. But it really all was going wrong. That horrible runner by Stain in the second? That had no business being a play but it was. Compare that to tonight and Stain is missing bunnies left and right and taking bad shots. Part of that was defense but part was a lack of confidence on a big stage. That game was also called very differently and it was clear that the X bigs were frustrated early on. Anyway, a tip of the cap to Xavier for playing smarter than we did. If it was coaching, I could see the argument that JT3 should have cut off the stupid shots throughout the first half but the effort argument is a nonstarter.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Mar 14, 2015 22:40:01 GMT -5
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. Dr.Q - you let your wife out of the basement during the game last night didn't you? |
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,681
|
Post by tashoya on Mar 14, 2015 22:40:24 GMT -5
This development of players discussion is always interesting. Like it's a coaching thing. Some kids need a lot of direction. Some need none. You can tell a kid all day what it takes to be successful but it won't always make him work for it. Development is on the people themselves. You can't motivate people that don't care and you can't make a horrible shooter a great shooter by coaching them. It requires effort on the part of the individual. Roy is the perfect example. I'm sure JT3 had a hand in that. But Roy became Roy mostly because of Roy taking advantage of the resources available to him. You can't force the guy. You can try by threatening to recruit over him I guess but what else can a coach do? He can't work with the guys all off-season. Josh went back to Cali and you basically hope for the best like with other college students. I'm largely confused by this whole conversation. BTW, Calipari gets billed as a guy that develops talent. How is he remotely responsible for developing guys that will get drafted around where they would have gotten drafted anyway without playing for him?
No one thought Otto or Jeff would get drafted where they did coming in. No one. If you wanna rip the staff, fine. But be fair about it. I think development is more about the kids in the fundamentals of shooting. Improving defensively and in their reads? To me, that's coaching. And our coaches do that pretty well.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079 
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 14, 2015 22:46:51 GMT -5
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. You accused me of not giving the staff the credit it deserved for developing talented players but it seems to me you refuse to give them any of the blame for less talented players not progressing in all phases of the game.. Otto turning into a lottery pick is good for the staff but Nate not being able to take a jumper(note I said take not make)is a recruiting issue? Where am I saying the staff deserves no blame ever when it comes to player development? I actually said in a post that Lubick is the one player that didn't develop that I blame on the staff/coaching/and recruiting. Lubick is really one of the only players that didn't develop at all under III. So there is no argument there, though I don't think he would have developed much more anywhere else as it seemed to be more of a priority issue with Lubick. Every program has their Lubicks. I am saying that player development is about as good as you can expect from a college program and one of the strengths of our program relative to other college programs. If you expect every single player to make huge leaps from freshman to senior year, well that's just not realistic. We have had some guys make huge leaps in a season, some guys who have made steady improvements every year which adds up to a huge senior leap and very few make little to no improvement over four years. Lubick's issues were especially amplified because we didn't recruit well enough to cut back his playing time. The staff isn't perfect but you have to have realistic expectations when it comes to developing college players. |
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 14, 2015 22:50:56 GMT -5
This development of players discussion is always interesting. Like it's a coaching thing. Some kids need a lot of direction. Some need none. You can tell a kid all day what it takes to be successful but it won't always make him work for it. Development is on the people themselves. You can't motivate people that don't care and you can't make a horrible shooter a great shooter by coaching them. It requires effort on the part of the individual. Roy is the perfect example. I'm sure JT3 had a hand in that. But Roy became Roy mostly because of Roy taking advantage of the resources available to him. You can't force the guy. You can try by threatening to recruit over him I guess but what else can a coach do? He can't work with the guys all off-season. Josh went back to Cali and you basically hope for the best like with other college students. I'm largely confused by this whole conversation. BTW, Calipari gets billed as a guy that develops talent. How is he remotely responsible for developing guys that will get drafted around where they would have gotten drafted anyway without playing for him? No one thought Otto or Jeff would get drafted where they did coming in. No one. If you wanna rip the staff, fine. But be fair about it. I think development is more about the kids in the fundamentals of shooting. Improving defensively and in their reads? To me, that's coaching. And our coaches do that pretty well. This is more or less my point. We do an excellent job of giving kids the opportunity to succeed and reach their potential. It's up to them to put the work in to make it happen. Henry Sims is another good example of that. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,396
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 14, 2015 23:27:35 GMT -5
This development of players discussion is always interesting. Like it's a coaching thing. Some kids need a lot of direction. Some need none. You can tell a kid all day what it takes to be successful but it won't always make him work for it. Development is on the people themselves. You can't motivate people that don't care and you can't make a horrible shooter a great shooter by coaching them. It requires effort on the part of the individual. Roy is the perfect example. I'm sure JT3 had a hand in that. But Roy became Roy mostly because of Roy taking advantage of the resources available to him. You can't force the guy. You can try by threatening to recruit over him I guess but what else can a coach do? He can't work with the guys all off-season. Josh went back to Cali and you basically hope for the best like with other college students. I'm largely confused by this whole conversation. BTW, Calipari gets billed as a guy that develops talent. How is he remotely responsible for developing guys that will get drafted around where they would have gotten drafted anyway without playing for him? No one thought Otto or Jeff would get drafted where they did coming in. No one. If you wanna rip the staff, fine. But be fair about it. I think development is more about the kids in the fundamentals of shooting. Improving defensively and in their reads? To me, that's coaching. And our coaches do that pretty well. Statements like this kill me in these debates.. Why is the example almost always one end of the spectrum or the other? You're right a horrible shooter more than likely won't become a great shooter but why does that have to be the goal? Why can't that horrible shooter become an average shooter? I'm not gonna touch your comments about kids not caring, I didn't see that in any of the kids I've mentioned in this thread.. Seems cynical to go there imo.. A staff has to set goals each off-season for it's returning players and it's up to them to keep up on how the players are progressing toward those goals.. A friend of mine told me his son was required to send two one hour shooting sessions to his HS coach per week over the summer.. I just don't buy into the notion that the coaching staff is almost powerless to help it's roster develop.. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,396
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 14, 2015 23:35:25 GMT -5
You accused me of not giving the staff the credit it deserved for developing talented players but it seems to me you refuse to give them any of the blame for less talented players not progressing in all phases of the game.. Otto turning into a lottery pick is good for the staff but Nate not being able to take a jumper(note I said take not make)is a recruiting issue? Where am I saying the staff deserves no blame ever when it comes to player development? I actually said in a post that Lubick is the one player that didn't develop that I blame on the staff/coaching/and recruiting. Lubick is really one of the only players that didn't develop at all under III. So there is no argument there, though I don't think he would have developed much more anywhere else as it seemed to be more of a priority issue with Lubick. Every program has their Lubicks. I am saying that player development is about as good as you can expect from a college program and one of the strengths of our program relative to other college programs. If you expect every single player to make huge leaps from freshman to senior year, well that's just not realistic. We have had some guys make huge leaps in a season, some guys who have made steady improvements every year which adds up to a huge senior leap and very few make little to no improvement over four years. Lubick's issues were especially amplified because we didn't recruit well enough to cut back his playing time. The staff isn't perfect but you have to have realistic expectations when it comes to developing college players. You did post that the issues of Hop, Nate & Bowen were due to recruiting misses.. That seems like you're passing the buck to me.. I don't expect every player to make "huge" leaps but why is it unrealistic to expect at least small leaps from the majority of kids? I think player development can be better but we can agree to disagree.. |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,605
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Mar 14, 2015 23:57:02 GMT -5
Talking about GU recruiting misses, how many Villanova players were our misses? Ochefu, Hart, Jenkins? Booth? Anyone else?
Good luck to all BE teams in March Madness!
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 15, 2015 0:06:34 GMT -5
This development of players discussion is always interesting. Like it's a coaching thing. Some kids need a lot of direction. Some need none. You can tell a kid all day what it takes to be successful but it won't always make him work for it. Development is on the people themselves. You can't motivate people that don't care and you can't make a horrible shooter a great shooter by coaching them. It requires effort on the part of the individual. Roy is the perfect example. I'm sure JT3 had a hand in that. But Roy became Roy mostly because of Roy taking advantage of the resources available to him. You can't force the guy. You can try by threatening to recruit over him I guess but what else can a coach do? He can't work with the guys all off-season. Josh went back to Cali and you basically hope for the best like with other college students. I'm largely confused by this whole conversation. BTW, Calipari gets billed as a guy that develops talent. How is he remotely responsible for developing guys that will get drafted around where they would have gotten drafted anyway without playing for him? No one thought Otto or Jeff would get drafted where they did coming in. No one. If you wanna rip the staff, fine. But be fair about it. I think development is more about the kids in the fundamentals of shooting. Improving defensively and in their reads? To me, that's coaching. And our coaches do that pretty well. Statements like this kill me in these debates.. Why is the example almost always one end of the spectrum or the other? You're right a horrible shooter more than likely won't become a great shooter but why does that have to be the goal? Why can't that horrible shooter become an average shooter? I'm not gonna touch your comments about kids not caring, I didn't see that in any of the kids I've mentioned in this thread.. Seems cynical to go there imo.. A staff has to set goals each off-season for it's returning players and it's up to them to keep up on how the players are progressing toward those goals.. A friend of mine told me his son was required to send two one hour shooting sessions to his HS coach per week over the summer.. I just don't buy into the notion that the coaching staff is almost powerless to help it's roster develop.. You mean like Trawick... and Sapp...and Sims...and Starks? Starks may not have been a horrible shooter but shooting percentages skyrocketed from him freshman year to Junior year (they fell off a bit his senior year but that was more because he had to do so much). I don't quite understand who all these undeveloped players are that the staff clearly let down? Other than Lubick, there hasn't been a player under III that hasn't made significant strides in at least one area of the game. And where does recruiting and player limitations play into it, they can only do so much with a guy like Bowen in 4 years. And again, you aren't going to be successful developing every guy on the roster. At this point I think we are just arguing in circles, though A list of guys who finished their careers at Georgetown under III (I'm sure I'm forgetting some guys) 08: Green, Wallace, Hibbert, Crawford 09:Sapp 10: Summers 11:Wright, Freeman, Vaughn 12: Sims, Clark, Thompson 14: Lubick, Starks, Moses 15: Hopkins, Otto, Trawick, Bowen Who on that list, besides Lubick, hasn't made significant strides since their freshman year? No one and 7 of them have had some sort of NBA contract. You can argue that Hopkins and Bowen are still offensive liabilities in some ways, and you would be correct, but they are much better in other aspects of the game. And Bowen's finishing and control has improved tremendously. That is a pretty great track record at development. So at this point I just question your expectations for player development. You also might point out the fact I didn't include transfers, but since it's safe to assume a transfer was caused by a situation not being the right fit for various reasons, it didn't seem to be make much sense to include them. Plus they never got the full four years to improve and develop. |
|
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 Mar 15, 2015 8:23:48 GMT -5
This offense needs to be scrapped! Finally, you clearly state your agenda honestly. If you seriously think all of our offense is backdoor cuts you either aren't watching the games or you don't understand basketball. I'm going with the don't understand basketball part, based on some of these nonsense posts. but that is what this offense is built around, beating guys off backdoor cuts. That's mainly what we look to do..  |
|
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 Mar 15, 2015 9:07:21 GMT -5
though we have had plenty of athletic guards never make progress defensively (see Clark, Jason). Revisionist history here. |
|
canissaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 524
|
Post by canissaxa on Mar 15, 2015 9:53:58 GMT -5
Finally, you clearly state your agenda honestly. If you seriously think all of our offense is backdoor cuts you either aren't watching the games or you don't understand basketball. I'm going with the don't understand basketball part, based on some of these nonsense posts. Yep. This with a dash of trolling. On the plus side, this nonsense motivated me to figure out the blocking functions on the site. For anyone looking, it's in the member section. |
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 15, 2015 10:13:25 GMT -5
though we have had plenty of athletic guards never make progress defensively (see Clark, Jason). Revisionist history here. Go back and read my posts from 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009. You may disagree with me but I have always held that opinion. |
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 15, 2015 10:14:44 GMT -5
Players improve as much or more at Georgetown as anywhere else. Some guys always work harder at the things they need to work on than other guys. With players like Domingo I suspect he would shoot better with more playing time but if he can't guard or handle the ball or rebound effectively he is not going to get the playing time. Those are things he needed to work on.
I never understand how any player does not improve as a shooter simply because shooting in the gym everyday should make you a better shooter just from muscle memory alone.
If you look at the players who developed the most one thing that stands out to me is their improvement at pull-up jumpers off a hard dribble. You could tell that Green and Wallace both had made that their summer project in 2006. Also Freeman, Hollis, Otto - guys who already were good shooters worked hard at having a quicker motion and release on their jumpers.
|
|
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 Mar 15, 2015 12:05:48 GMT -5
Revisionist history here. Go back and read my posts from 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009. You may disagree with me but I have always held that opinion. I believe you, so I don't think I'm going to go back and review those posts. What I did do, however, was take a quick look at Hoya Prospectus. While DRtg may not be as good a stat as ORtg, HP does show a significant increase in Clark's rating from junior to senior year, the only years available for him. As well, Sports Reference shows a tremendous jump in his defensive win shares over the course of his career. |
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 15, 2015 12:08:22 GMT -5
Go back and read my posts from 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009. You may disagree with me but I have always held that opinion. I believe you, so I don't think I'm going to go back and review those posts. What I did do, however, was take a quick look at Hoya Prospectus. While DRtg may not be as good a stat as ORtg, HP does show a significant increase in Clark's rating from junior to senior year, the only years available for him. As well, Statsheet shows a tremendous jump in his defensive win shares over the course of his career. Interesting. I believe it as Clark made huge strides in the rest of his game for his senior year. That was one of the more impressive personal jumps, imo, under III. I just never liked how slow Clark was laterally on defense so I could clearly have let that bias persuade me his senior year. |
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,416
|
Post by drquigley on Mar 15, 2015 14:20:05 GMT -5
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. Dr.Q - you let your wife out of the basement during the game last night didn't you? Nah, we taped it and watched yesterday afternoon. She had plenty of time to plan for a shopping spree. Hmm, I wonder if she was watching at some department store. That would explain it. |
|
