|
|
Post by HoyaRejuveNation85 on Jan 12, 2017 12:16:17 GMT -5
I agree completely with the need to evolve and recognize that plodding big men are a thing of the past under the current rules of the game. That doesn't mean that there's no room for quality big men. It just means that the big men we recruit must be able to move enough to defend and rebound their positions. Our switching defense exacerbates the situation. The constant switching leaves our currently slow-footed big men (Hayes and Govan in particular) regularly exposed away from the hoop. If we want to play that defense, we cannot recruit players who don't possess the ability to adapt to it. That's reflective of some of the real problems I see with JT3's recruiting. He mixes and matches (grabbing recruits that may be higher ranked but don't fit as well as others) and that leaves obvious issues when we run an offense based on Princeton principles that has bigs like Lubick, Vaughn, Hopkins, etc. who can't or don't want to shoot from outside of 6 feet. Similarly, we switch on defense, but have players like Hayes and Govan (although I was hopeful that he had the ability to improve on this) who seem incapable of staying remotely close to the smaller players that they often end up covering while defending the pick and roll. It costs us game after game. I'm encouraged by what I recently see with a smaller lineup and hope we use it more often.
|
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Jan 12, 2017 12:54:15 GMT -5
I agree completely with the need to evolve and recognize that plodding big men are a thing of the past under the current rules of the game. That doesn't mean that there's no room for quality big men. It just means that the big men we recruit must be able to move enough to defend and rebound their positions. Our switching defense exacerbates the situation. The constant switching leaves our currently slow-footed big men (Hayes and Govan in particular) regularly exposed away from the hoop. If we want to play that defense, we cannot recruit players who don't possess the ability to adapt to it. That's reflective of some of the real problems I see with JT3's recruiting. He mixes and matches (grabbing recruits that may be higher ranked but don't fit as well as others) and that leaves obvious issues when we run an offense based on Princeton principles that has bigs like Lubick, Vaughn, Hopkins, etc. who can't or don't want to shoot from outside of 6 feet. Similarly, we switch on defense, but have players like Hayes and Govan (although I was hopeful that he had the ability to improve on this) who seem incapable of staying remotely close to the smaller players that they often end up covering while defending the pick and roll. It costs us game after game. I'm encouraged by what I recently see with a smaller lineup and hope we use it more often. If they could do everything they would be 5 star recruits that would be residing at Kentucky, Duke or Kansas. That's basically the reality that the one and done 5 stars are being monopolized by a couple schools at the expense of the rest. If 13 Mcdoanlds all Americans are going to these 3 schools a year that leaves only a couple for the other 150 schools. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,396
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 12, 2017 13:36:49 GMT -5
I agree completely with the need to evolve and recognize that plodding big men are a thing of the past under the current rules of the game. That doesn't mean that there's no room for quality big men. It just means that the big men we recruit must be able to move enough to defend and rebound their positions. Our switching defense exacerbates the situation. The constant switching leaves our currently slow-footed big men (Hayes and Govan in particular) regularly exposed away from the hoop. If we want to play that defense, we cannot recruit players who don't possess the ability to adapt to it. That's reflective of some of the real problems I see with JT3's recruiting. He mixes and matches (grabbing recruits that may be higher ranked but don't fit as well as others) and that leaves obvious issues when we run an offense based on Princeton principles that has bigs like Lubick, Vaughn, Hopkins, etc. who can't or don't want to shoot from outside of 6 feet. Similarly, we switch on defense, but have players like Hayes and Govan (although I was hopeful that he had the ability to improve on this) who seem incapable of staying remotely close to the smaller players that they often end up covering while defending the pick and roll. It costs us game after game. I'm encouraged by what I recently see with a smaller lineup and hope we use it more often. If they could do everything they would be 5 star recruits that would be residing at Kentucky, Duke or Kansas. That's basically the reality that the one and done 5 stars are being monopolized by a couple schools at the expense of the rest. If 13 Mcdoanlds all Americans are going to these 3 schools a year that leaves only a couple for the other 150 schools. How many HS AA's are on Villanova? Or Creighton or Butler or Xavier or ND or Gonzaga? I don't buy into the one & done excuse at all, there's plenty of talent out there IMO.. |
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,537 
|
Post by bostonfan on Jan 12, 2017 15:06:30 GMT -5
If they could do everything they would be 5 star recruits that would be residing at Kentucky, Duke or Kansas. That's basically the reality that the one and done 5 stars are being monopolized by a couple schools at the expense of the rest. If 13 Mcdoanlds all Americans are going to these 3 schools a year that leaves only a couple for the other 150 schools. How many HS AA's are on Villanova? Or Creighton or Butler or Xavier or ND or Gonzaga? I don't buy into the one & done excuse at all, there's plenty of talent out there IMO.. I agree you can find guys who are not 5 star guys who can be very effective college players. The 7' big men who can still move well laterally and are explosive athletes are the guys going to Duke and Kentucky, but that still leaves a lot of 6' -9" guys with long arms who are really quick that can be really effective college centers. They don't get rated as 5 star players because they don't project as great NBA players but Georgetown doesn't need them to be great NBA players, just effective college players. Govan has some mobility, Hayes has none and they are both going to struggle defending the pick and roll that everyone runs. I would love to see Agua play more center, I think he can be an effective defender and rebounder if given the minutes. |
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 12, 2017 16:45:19 GMT -5
Henry was more athletic but nowhere near the shooter... I don't think henry is that athletic. They are about the same athleticism which is slightly below par for he NBA level. Jessie is very unathletic in space.....at his current level of athleticism no way he sticks in the league. But of course, as I always remark, it seems like his physical development is almost 1-2 years behind his age. His body and movements still assemble that of a teenager, albeit a huge one. Kind of like hes never hit the weights. Hopefully that corner is one that he will be able to turn as an undergrad. |
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,656
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Jan 12, 2017 21:52:36 GMT -5
Govan needs to be wide open to make a shot and he has a slow release.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaRejuveNation85 on Jan 13, 2017 13:25:14 GMT -5
I agree completely with the need to evolve and recognize that plodding big men are a thing of the past under the current rules of the game. That doesn't mean that there's no room for quality big men. It just means that the big men we recruit must be able to move enough to defend and rebound their positions. Our switching defense exacerbates the situation. The constant switching leaves our currently slow-footed big men (Hayes and Govan in particular) regularly exposed away from the hoop. If we want to play that defense, we cannot recruit players who don't possess the ability to adapt to it. That's reflective of some of the real problems I see with JT3's recruiting. He mixes and matches (grabbing recruits that may be higher ranked but don't fit as well as others) and that leaves obvious issues when we run an offense based on Princeton principles that has bigs like Lubick, Vaughn, Hopkins, etc. who can't or don't want to shoot from outside of 6 feet. Similarly, we switch on defense, but have players like Hayes and Govan (although I was hopeful that he had the ability to improve on this) who seem incapable of staying remotely close to the smaller players that they often end up covering while defending the pick and roll. It costs us game after game. I'm encouraged by what I recently see with a smaller lineup and hope we use it more often. If they could do everything they would be 5 star recruits that would be residing at Kentucky, Duke or Kansas. That's basically the reality that the one and done 5 stars are being monopolized by a couple schools at the expense of the rest. If 13 Mcdoanlds all Americans are going to these 3 schools a year that leaves only a couple for the other 150 schools. Professor, you're right about the 5 star big men going to a select group of schools generally. My point, as Etomic helped clarify, was simply that we need to recruit bigs who FIT what we do. I also pointed out that what we do on defense also puts our bigs in poor mismatches. I'd rather have a smaller big with the requisite lateral quickness than a lumbering one who can't guard anyone. This is especially true if continue to encourage switches on defense that leaves less mobile bigs defenseless. |
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,416
|
Post by drquigley on Jan 13, 2017 14:06:11 GMT -5
If they could do everything they would be 5 star recruits that would be residing at Kentucky, Duke or Kansas. That's basically the reality that the one and done 5 stars are being monopolized by a couple schools at the expense of the rest. If 13 Mcdoanlds all Americans are going to these 3 schools a year that leaves only a couple for the other 150 schools. Professor, you're right about the 5 star big men going to a select group of schools generally. My point, as Etomic helped clarify, was simply that we need to recruit bigs who FIT what we do. I also pointed out that what we do on defense also puts our bigs in poor mismatches. I'd rather have a smaller big with the requisite lateral quickness than a lumbering one who can't guard anyone. This is especially true if continue to encourage switches on defense that leaves less mobile bigs defenseless. Agree completely. Same point I've been trying to make all year. Govan is the perfect example. I'd rather have a 6'5"- 6'8" athletic forward who can dribble, rebound, and play defense than a lumbering 6'10" center who can do none of those. Doesn't have to be a 5 star guy. Kaleb might eventually fit the bill. Notice we look much better since he has gotten more pt. |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,605
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 13, 2017 16:32:31 GMT -5
If they could do everything they would be 5 star recruits that would be residing at Kentucky, Duke or Kansas. That's basically the reality that the one and done 5 stars are being monopolized by a couple schools at the expense of the rest. If 13 Mcdoanlds all Americans are going to these 3 schools a year that leaves only a couple for the other 150 schools. Professor, you're right about the 5 star big men going to a select group of schools generally. My point, as Etomic helped clarify, was simply that we need to recruit bigs who FIT what we do. I also pointed out that what we do on defense also puts our bigs in poor mismatches. I'd rather have a smaller big with the requisite lateral quickness than a lumbering one who can't guard anyone. This is especially true if continue to encourage switches on defense that leaves less mobile bigs defenseless. Or scrap the switching defense with players who cannot, or do not know how to, switch. More and more we'll see rosters with new players in transfers/grads and freshmen coming in and having to be on the same page as the other experienced players. Something is not working. Simplify it. Also, why is Bradley put in a position to do a "Lubick Fly-By" defending a perimeter shooter? Who's covering the post or preparing to rebound down low when, after the fly-by, our tallest player and one of the best rebounders on this team ends up farther away from the basket than any other player on the court? Seasons change, but our fly-bys don't. |
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 13, 2017 16:52:11 GMT -5
Professor, you're right about the 5 star big men going to a select group of schools generally. My point, as Etomic helped clarify, was simply that we need to recruit bigs who FIT what we do. I also pointed out that what we do on defense also puts our bigs in poor mismatches. I'd rather have a smaller big with the requisite lateral quickness than a lumbering one who can't guard anyone. This is especially true if continue to encourage switches on defense that leaves less mobile bigs defenseless. Or scrap the switching defense with players who cannot, or do not know how to, switch. More and more we'll see rosters with new players in transfers/grads and freshmen coming in and having to be on the same page as the other experienced players. Something is not working. Simplify it. Also, why is Bradley put in a position to do a "Lubick Fly-By" defending a perimeter shooter? Who's covering the post or preparing to rebound down low when, after the fly-by, our tallest player and one of the best rebounders on this team ends up farther away from the basket than any other player on the court? Seasons change, but our fly-bys don't. We started the year NOT switching at all times. We had the big hedge hard and then recover. We still do that an awful lot. So, we aren't switching all picks. Ironically, switching everything is far "simpler" of a strategy. So, to simplify things, you'd actually go back to switching all picks. Hedging and recovering requires rotation and communication. The "fly by" is inevitable no matter what sort of man to man you're playing. There's always going to be some level of rotations. Sure, I get that if you never get beat off the dribble, never double team anyone, and always successfully recover to your original man after a pick, there's no need to rotate. But that's impossible. Even for great defensive teams. |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,605
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 13, 2017 17:04:49 GMT -5
Or scrap the switching defense with players who cannot, or do not know how to, switch. More and more we'll see rosters with new players in transfers/grads and freshmen coming in and having to be on the same page as the other experienced players. Something is not working. Simplify it. Also, why is Bradley put in a position to do a "Lubick Fly-By" defending a perimeter shooter? Who's covering the post or preparing to rebound down low when, after the fly-by, our tallest player and one of the best rebounders on this team ends up farther away from the basket than any other player on the court? Seasons change, but our fly-bys don't. We started the year NOT switching at all times. We had the big hedge hard and then recover. We still do that an awful lot. So, we aren't switching all picks. Ironically, switching everything is far "simpler" of a strategy. So, to simplify things, you'd actually go back to switching all picks. Hedging and recovering requires rotation and communication. The "fly by" is inevitable no matter what sort of man to man you're playing. There's always going to be some level of rotations. Sure, I get that if you never get beat off the dribble, never double team anyone, and always successfully recover to your original man after a pick, there's no need to rotate. But that's impossible. Even for great defensive teams. Kill the hard hedging by Bradley and Govan too. As we've seen, it's pretty hard for them to recover and leaves us exposed for a foul or for the penetration, or both. The "fly-by" can be stopped. The instruction should be: if you need to run and jump to recover to get to your man, you're late. Get as close as possible to the shooter, stay in front of your man, stick the hand in the face and turn to block him out for the long rebound. Damage is done with the open shot. Mitigate. How many times do we get a block on those shots versus the fouls, whiffs, and out-of-position players for rebounds? The fly-bys are ineffective and counter-productive. |
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 13, 2017 19:54:27 GMT -5
We started the year NOT switching at all times. We had the big hedge hard and then recover. We still do that an awful lot. So, we aren't switching all picks. Ironically, switching everything is far "simpler" of a strategy. So, to simplify things, you'd actually go back to switching all picks. Hedging and recovering requires rotation and communication. The "fly by" is inevitable no matter what sort of man to man you're playing. There's always going to be some level of rotations. Sure, I get that if you never get beat off the dribble, never double team anyone, and always successfully recover to your original man after a pick, there's no need to rotate. But that's impossible. Even for great defensive teams. Kill the hard hedging by Bradley and Govan too. As we've seen, it's pretty hard for them to recover and leaves us exposed for a foul or for the penetration, or both. The "fly-by" can be stopped. The instruction should be: if you need to run and jump to recover to get to your man, you're late. Get as close as possible to the shooter, stay in front of your man, stick the hand in the face and turn to block him out for the long rebound. Damage is done with the open shot. Mitigate. How many times do we get a block on those shots versus the fouls, whiffs, and out-of-position players for rebounds? The fly-bys are ineffective and counter-productive. As to the hedging and switching, they have to do something when their man sets a pick! They can hedge a bit less aggressively (just show) but it's not much different. The fly by is impossible to know. I will grant that you may give up some boards, but we don't know how many misses occur because someone is jumping at them that wouldn't occur if someone were just approaching with a hand up. I think you're probably right, but my point simply was that you are going to have times where your five has to try to run a good three point shooter off the line or at least contest. |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,605
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 14, 2017 11:27:19 GMT -5
Kill the hard hedging by Bradley and Govan too. As we've seen, it's pretty hard for them to recover and leaves us exposed for a foul or for the penetration, or both. The "fly-by" can be stopped. The instruction should be: if you need to run and jump to recover to get to your man, you're late. Get as close as possible to the shooter, stay in front of your man, stick the hand in the face and turn to block him out for the long rebound. Damage is done with the open shot. Mitigate. How many times do we get a block on those shots versus the fouls, whiffs, and out-of-position players for rebounds? The fly-bys are ineffective and counter-productive. As to the hedging and switching, they have to do something when their man sets a pick! They can hedge a bit less aggressively (just show) but it's not much different. The fly by is impossible to know. I will grant that you may give up some boards, but we don't know how many misses occur because someone is jumping at them that wouldn't occur if someone were just approaching with a hand up. I think you're probably right, but my point simply was that you are going to have times where your five has to try to run a good three point shooter off the line or at least contest. Two of the things I'll be looking for today. Let's see how it goes. Btw, MD did the hedging vs SJU and he was better than Hayes and Govan, but still a bit late recovering. |
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Jan 14, 2017 23:24:23 GMT -5
A sad day in Mudville for He who must not be named and his football friends.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Jan 14, 2017 23:34:13 GMT -5
A sad day in Mudville for He who must not be named and his football friends. who He? |
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,604
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jan 15, 2017 10:02:19 GMT -5
A sad day in Mudville for He who must not be named and his football friends.  |
|
DanMcQ
Moderator 
Posts: 32,848
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 15, 2017 20:56:36 GMT -5
|
|
royski
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,300
|
Post by royski on Jan 15, 2017 21:13:03 GMT -5
We're not paying a guy millions of bucks a year to do an easy job. It's a hard job. But it's one our guy is failing at.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Jan 15, 2017 21:18:57 GMT -5
We're not paying a guy millions of bucks a year to do an easy job. It's a hard job. But it's one our guy is failing at. Exactly, this isn't some area high school job. At $3m a year more is expected. How can these mid majors who have now elevated themselves in our new conference surpassed us so fast? I think there would be one place to look. |
|
bamahoya11
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,831
|
Post by bamahoya11 on Jan 15, 2017 21:28:30 GMT -5
|
|
