rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 17, 2017 11:21:26 GMT -5
Why would fans be the most critical? I am not saying that to be argumentative or to put down anyone's opinion; that concept just does not compute with me. In my world, fans should be the most patient and supportive, so please help me understand that mindset. Thanks. If JTIII was my financial advisor and was yielding a negative return year over year like his basketball TEAMS and his PROGRAM I would fire him. Except he's not, so you can't. |
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Jan 17, 2017 11:25:14 GMT -5
Rock meet bottom. I am done going to games for the year. I can't stomach it anymore. I'll be at the Butler away game because I already set that weekend up. Attendance was awful, effort was worse, and coaching & preparation were non-existent. We are 4-8 the rest of the way is my best guess. Some brief fire thompson cheers last night from students but overall they were pretty solid. There just wasn't anything to cheer about. I had a whole row to myself lol. Glide, I turned around at the 5 minute mark and there was no one behind me in section 100. I jokingly sent a pic to the #hoyafans hoping it would show up during the fan pics. Damn that was brutal. |
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 17, 2017 11:27:40 GMT -5
It's probably my SFS degree talking but watching the Hoyas the last few years reminds me of the controversy surrounding battleships in the 1930's. The Navy establishment refused to see that battleships were becoming obsolete with the creation of naval aviation and aircraft carriers. Despite warnings from Bill Mitchell it took Pearl Harbor to convince them that battleships were just too easy targets for aircraft launched bombers and torpedo boats. Does anyone else see the similarity with today's basketball? Our big men "battleships" have become almost totally irrelevant. The 3 point shot and shot clock have completely changed the game. Pitino saw this first and has used his understanding of it to make a fortune. Those little guards and 6'5" - 6'7" swingmen just blow by the bigs or launch from long range. The game last night was a perfect example. Sadly, even worse disasters await when we play Nova and Creighton (assuming Watson is healthy). Our only success the last few years was when we had Otto Porter doing what guys like Josh Hart does for Nova. I'm sure JT3 sees this but can't get away from what he is most comfortable with. Until we either replace JT3 or start replacing the Hayes' and Govans with more LJ's and Walkers the downward spiral will continue. I don't necessarily agree that the "big man" per se is obsolete. Ewing and Olijawon and Mourning would still be forces in today's game(of course they were pretty atypical).But it is the TYPE of big man we have right now that is the problem. Hayes, Govan, Josh Smith - guys that are slow-footed, slow jumping big men. Today's bigs need to be able to be quick enough to stick with the slashers going to the hoop, and jump to alter shots, without just fouling. When they get the ball down low they need to make their move and get their shot off quickly, or kick it to the open shooters while they are still open shooters. Our bigs are just far too mechanical. |
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 17, 2017 11:48:42 GMT -5
I know it's a chat board and so we "chat." We discuss our thoughts in real time. That's the format. And that's OK.
But I still think it simply doesn't make any sense at all to analyze this season as it relates to the Coach and future job security until the season is over. If you made your mind up five years ago, four years ago, or just last year, then obviously the performance of the team this year reinforces your earlier conclusion. I get it. After each loss Eagle and Alto chime in. And that's fine. But if you hadn't mind up your mind after last year (and I hadn't), then you have to let the year play out before you say "he has to go" or whatever. Until the year is over, you simply can't assess the year in its totality or the state of the program in its totality. I know people think they can and/or that they "know" how the year will turn out. But that's simply not true.
Last night was an abomination, as I wrote in the game thread (in those or similar words). From a coaching perspective, I thought the biggest problem was defensively. We knew exactly what they would do and we looked utterly incompetent in our rotations despite that -- frequently not rotating at all or getting caught in between. Lots and lots of teams have non-mobile fives that get forced to show/hedge/switch on high screen-roles. We're not abnormal in that regard. So it's not really a "we recruit the wrong guys" type of thing (in my view). Sure, I'd rather we recruit guys that are big, tall, AND quick, but again, plenty of good teams don't have that. We just don't rotate to protect against it correctly, and our guards aren't capable of staying in front of their guy even when we do, which forces other problems. So, that was the biggest thing to me from a coaching perspective. It's really on the guards to not get beat after the big man recovers. That's where we got (and get) killed. The pick happens, the defense rotates to protect, and as Brad is running back into the lane thinking the guard now has things under control, the guard gets blown by. And we aren't able to deal with that because we're in mid-rotation. Brad and Jesse aren't good in that situation -- don't get me wrong. Marcus is much better for what it's worth. But the fundamental problem continues to be the guards.
Offensively, we have enough weapons to win (assuming competent defense, which unfortunately isn't something we can assume). And we certainly ended up with a lot of good shots when we weren't committing horrific unforced turnovers. But when we shoot like we did last night, it doesn't matter what coach we have, what sets we run, etc. -- we aren't going to win. You can't go 5-23 from three and win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 12:31:14 GMT -5
I know it's a chat board and so we "chat." We discuss our thoughts in real time. That's the format. And that's OK. But I still think it simply doesn't make any sense at all to analyze this season as it relates to the Coach and future job security until the season is over. If you made your mind up five years ago, four years ago, or just last year, then obviously the performance of the team this year reinforces your earlier conclusion. I get it. After each loss Eagle and Alto chime in. And that's fine. But if you hadn't mind up your mind after last year (and I hadn't), then you have to let the year play out before you say "he has to go" or whatever. Until the year is over, you simply can't assess the year in its totality or the state of the program in its totality. I know people think they can and/or that they "know" how the year will turn out. But that's simply not true. Last night was an abomination, as I wrote in the game thread (in those or similar words). From a coaching perspective, I thought the biggest problem was defensively. We knew exactly what they would do and we looked utterly incompetent in our rotations despite that -- frequently not rotating at all or getting caught in between. Lots and lots of teams have non-mobile fives that get forced to show/hedge/switch on high screen-roles. We're not abnormal in that regard. So it's not really a "we recruit the wrong guys" type of thing (in my view). Sure, I'd rather we recruit guys that are big, tall, AND quick, but again, plenty of good teams don't have that. We just don't rotate to protect against it correctly, and our guards aren't capable of staying in front of their guy even when we do, which forces other problems. So, that was the biggest thing to me from a coaching perspective. It's really on the guards to not get beat after the big man recovers. That's where we got (and get) killed. The pick happens, the defense rotates to protect, and as Brad is running back into the lane thinking the guard now has things under control, the guard gets blown by. And we aren't able to deal with that because we're in mid-rotation. Brad and Jesse aren't good in that situation -- don't get me wrong. Marcus is much better for what it's worth. But the fundamental problem continues to be the guards.Offensively, we have enough weapons to win (assuming competent defense, which unfortunately isn't something we can assume). And we certainly ended up with a lot of good shots when we weren't committing horrific unforced turnovers. But when we shoot like we did last night, it doesn't matter what coach we have, what sets we run, etc. -- we aren't going to win. You can't go 5-23 from three and win. This. Discussion of Bradley & Jessie has got to be secondary to this. We're getting around 10.5 pts, 9.5 rebs in just 33 mpg the 2 of these guys in conf. We're 2nd in the BE in Blocks, 2nd in Eff FG% Def, 3rd in Defensive Efficiency -- and surprisingly 3rd in giving up offensive rebounds. That "success" starts with our big men. They're bad, but they're not killing us right now. Our defense so far in conference has mirrored our issues from last season. We don't effectively pressure the ball (Last in Stls, last in TOs) and we're fouling more than any team in the conference by a wide margin. Except this year it's been Agau, Mulmore, and Jagan with the foul problems -- not Hayes & Govan. As much as we've had a team identity, it's been the Peak & Pryor show. When your 2 leading scorers shoot 37 and 39 percent from the floor respectively in the BE, it's gonna be tough for us to beat anybody. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,397
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 17, 2017 12:36:57 GMT -5
I know it's a chat board and so we "chat." We discuss our thoughts in real time. That's the format. And that's OK. But I still think it simply doesn't make any sense at all to analyze this season as it relates to the Coach and future job security until the season is over. If you made your mind up five years ago, four years ago, or just last year, then obviously the performance of the team this year reinforces your earlier conclusion. I get it. After each loss Eagle and Alto chime in. And that's fine. But if you hadn't mind up your mind after last year (and I hadn't), then you have to let the year play out before you say "he has to go" or whatever. Until the year is over, you simply can't assess the year in its totality or the state of the program in its totality. I know people think they can and/or that they "know" how the year will turn out. But that's simply not true. Last night was an abomination, as I wrote in the game thread (in those or similar words). From a coaching perspective, I thought the biggest problem was defensively. We knew exactly what they would do and we looked utterly incompetent in our rotations despite that -- frequently not rotating at all or getting caught in between. Lots and lots of teams have non-mobile fives that get forced to show/hedge/switch on high screen-roles. We're not abnormal in that regard. So it's not really a "we recruit the wrong guys" type of thing (in my view). Sure, I'd rather we recruit guys that are big, tall, AND quick, but again, plenty of good teams don't have that. We just don't rotate to protect against it correctly, and our guards aren't capable of staying in front of their guy even when we do, which forces other problems. So, that was the biggest thing to me from a coaching perspective. It's really on the guards to not get beat after the big man recovers. That's where we got (and get) killed. The pick happens, the defense rotates to protect, and as Brad is running back into the lane thinking the guard now has things under control, the guard gets blown by. And we aren't able to deal with that because we're in mid-rotation. Brad and Jesse aren't good in that situation -- don't get me wrong. Marcus is much better for what it's worth. But the fundamental problem continues to be the guards. Offensively, we have enough weapons to win (assuming competent defense, which unfortunately isn't something we can assume). And we certainly ended up with a lot of good shots when we weren't committing horrific unforced turnovers. But when we shoot like we did last night, it doesn't matter what coach we have, what sets we run, etc. -- we aren't going to win. You can't go 5-23 from three and win. What you're describing here defensively is a terrible scheme imo, in theory it could work but in practice very little shot even if JT3 had Gene Smith on the squad.. If a big hedges out on screens to slow a player down, it's very difficult for the screened player to get back in front of the offensive player due to the fact the big is in the space already.. Even if he's able to chances are low that he'll be squared up and in good defending position.. The offense will always have a big advantage on those plays IMO.. This is why many teams switch everything now.. |
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 17, 2017 12:47:48 GMT -5
Last night was an abomination, as I wrote in the game thread (in those or similar words). From a coaching perspective, I thought the biggest problem was defensively. We knew exactly what they would do and we looked utterly incompetent in our rotations despite that -- frequently not rotating at all or getting caught in between. Lots and lots of teams have non-mobile fives that get forced to show/hedge/switch on high screen-roles. We're not abnormal in that regard. So it's not really a "we recruit the wrong guys" type of thing (in my view). Sure, I'd rather we recruit guys that are big, tall, AND quick, but again, plenty of good teams don't have that. We just don't rotate to protect against it correctly, and our guards aren't capable of staying in front of their guy even when we do, which forces other problems. So, that was the biggest thing to me from a coaching perspective. It's really on the guards to not get beat after the big man recovers. That's where we got (and get) killed. The pick happens, the defense rotates to protect, and as Brad is running back into the lane thinking the guard now has things under control, the guard gets blown by. And we aren't able to deal with that because we're in mid-rotation. Brad and Jesse aren't good in that situation -- don't get me wrong. Marcus is much better for what it's worth. But the fundamental problem continues to be the guards. What you're describing here defensively is a terrible scheme imo, in theory it could work but in practice very little shot even if JT3 had Gene Smith on the squad.. If a big hedges out on screens to slow a player down, it's very difficult for the screened player to get back in front of the offensive player due to the fact the big is in the space already.. Even if he's able to chances are low that he'll be squared up and in good defending position.. The offense will always have a big advantage on those plays IMO.. This is why many teams switch everything now.. Switching is much, much easier -- there's no question about it. And our best teams defensively were able to switch a lot of the time. But otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If you have a bigger five, you have to be able to show hard to string it out or at least hedge to buy a little time. All you need to be able to do is get the guard that is using the pick to go backwards (ideally) or at least sideways. If you can force him backwards, the guard that got screened (our guard) has plenty of time to get underneath the screen and back in guarding position. And if you force him sideways, you still have time because you can cut off the angle. It's harder, and there's more moving parts, but lots and lots of teams do it. Heck, the years that Coach K has had bigger fives (e.g. a Plumlee), they've always had their five go very hard (too hard IMO) on screen-rolls to show and string it out. We've both shown (last night) and hedged at various times this year, so we're obviously still trying to figure out what may work. Regardless, we stink at it!! |
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,823
|
Post by njhoya78 on Jan 17, 2017 13:14:28 GMT -5
I'm fully aware that he has remained involved with the program since his "retirement" but yes I am shocked that a team manager personally relayed his in-game concerns to our coaching staff while we're getting our heads beat in. That's not startling to any one else? My rational reaction is to agree with you completely, but my knee jerk reaction when I read this was that this team could use ideas from anyone. Heck, have the managers poll the student section, take suggestions from the audience. Not a bad idea. I read once that Bill Veeck, while the owner of the St. Louis Browns (for you young'uns, they became the Baltimore Orioles) once handed out large cards to fans seated in the box seats, and polled them on specific situational strategies (bunt or steal, infield in or back) during a game, which results were then implemented. Maybe we could use advanced technology and run in-game strategy polls through a cell phone application in real time to assist the coaching staff. Hey, it won't be much worse than what we've seen this season. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,397
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 17, 2017 13:36:53 GMT -5
What you're describing here defensively is a terrible scheme imo, in theory it could work but in practice very little shot even if JT3 had Gene Smith on the squad.. If a big hedges out on screens to slow a player down, it's very difficult for the screened player to get back in front of the offensive player due to the fact the big is in the space already.. Even if he's able to chances are low that he'll be squared up and in good defending position.. The offense will always have a big advantage on those plays IMO.. This is why many teams switch everything now.. Switching is much, much easier -- there's no question about it. And our best teams defensively were able to switch a lot of the time. But otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If you have a bigger five, you have to be able to show hard to string it out or at least hedge to buy a little time. All you need to be able to do is get the guard that is using the pick to go backwards (ideally) or at least sideways. If you can force him backwards, the guard that got screened (our guard) has plenty of time to get underneath the screen and back in guarding position. And if you force him sideways, you still have time because you can cut off the angle. It's harder, and there's more moving parts, but lots and lots of teams do it. Heck, the years that Coach K has had bigger fives (e.g. a Plumlee), they've always had their five go very hard (too hard IMO) on screen-rolls to show and string it out. We've both shown (last night) and hedged at various times this year, so we're obviously still trying to figure out what may work. Regardless, we stink at it!! The bigs are not consistently getting ball handlers to go backwards or even slow them down.. Many times the ball handler beats their hedge so you end up with 2 players chasing the ball which causes a 3rd to react which starts the offensive teams passing clinic to find the wide open man.. You hit it on the head when you stated that they stink at it.. Very very true words.. The sad part is the fact that this is an old team, 8 of the 12 scholarship players are upperclassmen.. It also looks like the recruiting plan is to find more upperclassmen to help out next season, very uncertain times.. |
|
b52legend
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 453
|
Post by b52legend on Jan 17, 2017 13:40:23 GMT -5
I know it's a chat board and so we "chat." We discuss our thoughts in real time. That's the format. And that's OK. But I still think it simply doesn't make any sense at all to analyze this season as it relates to the Coach and future job security until the season is over. If you made your mind up five years ago, four years ago, or just last year, then obviously the performance of the team this year reinforces your earlier conclusion. I get it. After each loss Eagle and Alto chime in. And that's fine. But if you hadn't mind up your mind after last year (and I hadn't), then you have to let the year play out before you say "he has to go" or whatever. Until the year is over, you simply can't assess the year in its totality or the state of the program in its totality. I know people think they can and/or that they "know" how the year will turn out. But that's simply not true. I didn't have my mind made up about JTIII at the end of last year, and have been an ardent supporter of his over pretty much his entire tenure, thinking that he truly gave us the best chance of long-term success as a program. I don't feel that currently, and I'm pretty comfortable with that mid-season conclusion for a couple of reasons: - At this point it is clear we won't make the NCAA tournament. Given the talent on this team, that to me is an unacceptable outcome. - We have seen what should have been one of our best players leave the team mid-season. This goes to coach on a couple of levels: (i) it continues a long trend of transfers, (ii) it reflects a lack of player development from a guy who most observers think has the tools to be a contributor at a major program (both based on his prior early career-performance and based on his size/skill/athleticism) and (iii) it reflects a lack of buy-in on the part of players to the program. - Our record is not reflective of a lot of close losses or bad-luck on the injury front. It is reflective of the team we are -- not a very good one. The flaws are too numerous to list, and, in contrast to years past when I would think "if only we had X healthy" or "wait until next year when X gets on the hill", I have no such hope to cling on to currently. - The apathy from the fan base has reached a critical mass. I along with almost everyone I know has tailed off in terms of game-watches, trips to DC and general enthusiasm for the program. Maybe I'm a fair-weather fan, but most fans are. It is not realistic at this point to call upon our fans to do more without putting a better product on the floor. Watching our games is often depressing and not particularly enjoyable. I watch sports and go to games because it is enjoyable -- the loss to Providence, the loss to Maryland, the loss to Arkansas St., the loss to Wisconsin, the loss to Butler, the loss to OK. St..... not enjoyable. I don't know that replacing JTIII at the end of the season would be the "right" move, but the administration sure better be evaluating their options right now. If they wait until the end of the year, they may miss out on options, and I think there is plenty of factual data on the table right now to warrant starting that process. |
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,334
|
Post by vv83 on Jan 17, 2017 13:53:29 GMT -5
What you're describing here defensively is a terrible scheme imo, in theory it could work but in practice very little shot even if JT3 had Gene Smith on the squad.. If a big hedges out on screens to slow a player down, it's very difficult for the screened player to get back in front of the offensive player due to the fact the big is in the space already.. Even if he's able to chances are low that he'll be squared up and in good defending position.. The offense will always have a big advantage on those plays IMO.. This is why many teams switch everything now.. Switching is much, much easier -- there's no question about it. And our best teams defensively were able to switch a lot of the time. But otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If you have a bigger five, you have to be able to show hard to string it out or at least hedge to buy a little time. All you need to be able to do is get the guard that is using the pick to go backwards (ideally) or at least sideways. If you can force him backwards, the guard that got screened (our guard) has plenty of time to get underneath the screen and back in guarding position. And if you force him sideways, you still have time because you can cut off the angle. It's harder, and there's more moving parts, but lots and lots of teams do it. Heck, the years that Coach K has had bigger fives (e.g. a Plumlee), they've always had their five go very hard (too hard IMO) on screen-rolls to show and string it out. We've both shown (last night) and hedged at various times this year, so we're obviously still trying to figure out what may work. Regardless, we stink at it!! When we switch, we often end up with Hayes/govan isolated on a point guard at the top of the key. That rarely ends well. I think we probably would be best served by a pack line type D. keep everyone inside the 16 foot pack line, then jump out to aggressively contest/guard your man when they get the ball. Off the ball, always be in position to help if a player drives towards the basket. Double the post aggressively. Rotate and recover to the weak side behind help/post doubles. The goal is to try to force contested 3's as the primary shots other teams can get. you have to be completely coordinated in your movements as a team to make this work. And you have to be fully focused and quick in the contest/recover to behind the 16 foot pack line. But if a team coordinates well and is fully focused/disciplined - you can play good defense with the Pack Line even if you don't have 5 quick, long, athletic guys on the court together. UVA has some good athletes, but also some average ones - yet they smother a lot of teams with this D. So may teams use it now, it really is the best way to defend the spread PnR offensive schemes if you don't have the athletes/quickness across your team to switch everything. and if you switch everything - your defenders still need to be able to keep their man out of the lane after the switch. A switching D does not help much if you have a few bad on ball individual defenders involved in the switches. |
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,334
|
Post by vv83 on Jan 17, 2017 14:01:50 GMT -5
Last night as I was leaving the game (with about 8:30 left, down 21 - just did not see a big comeback coming last night, and I had a 2 hour trip home starting at 10:30!) - Lee Reed (AD) was sitting by himself in the top row of my section (109). He could not have looked more miserable. He had the classic "thousand mile stare" going, just brooding in misery about what was happening on the floor. I know that Reed bears significant responsibility for the program's issues. But I still felt for him. It was a good reminder that, as bad as we all feel about the state of things, the people who actually work and live the program every day of their lives are experiencing an entirely different form of misery. Yes, they are well compensated for this (though I am sure Reed makes just a fraction of what JTIII makes). But it still must be a lousy experience to spend years in this state of disappointment/frustration/confusion over the basketball program. I do hope that Reed is at least considering how we might move forward beyond simply trusting JTIII to get it fixed. Reed probably is a secondary player in any such decisions (I would guess that the President is calling the shots on this) but he is certainly part of the team advising the President on this stuff.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 17, 2017 14:12:10 GMT -5
My rational reaction is to agree with you completely, but my knee jerk reaction when I read this was that this team could use ideas from anyone. Heck, have the managers poll the student section, take suggestions from the audience. Not a bad idea. I read once that Bill Veeck, while the owner of the St. Louis Browns (for you young'uns, they became the Baltimore Orioles) once handed out large cards to fans seated in the box seats, and polled them on specific situational strategies (bunt or steal, infield in or back) during a game, which results were then implemented. Maybe we could use advanced technology and run in-game strategy polls through a cell phone application in real time to assist the coaching staff. Hey, it won't be much worse than what we've seen this season. I imagine you might have read it about three hours ago when I posted it...lol |
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422 
|
Post by the_way on Jan 17, 2017 14:25:30 GMT -5
Last night as I was leaving the game (with about 8:30 left, down 21 - just did not see a big comeback coming last night, and I had a 2 hour trip home starting at 10:30!) - Lee Reed (AD) was sitting by himself in the top row of my section (109). He could not have looked more miserable. He had the classic "thousand mile stare" going, just brooding in misery about what was happening on the floor. I know that Reed bears significant responsibility for the program's issues. But I still felt for him. It was a good reminder that, as bad as we all feel about the state of things, the people who actually work and live the program every day of their lives are experiencing an entirely different form of misery. Yes, they are well compensated for this (though I am sure Reed makes just a fraction of what JTIII makes). But it still must be a lousy experience to spend years in this state of disappointment/frustration/confusion over the basketball program. I do hope that Reed is at least considering how we might move forward beyond simply trusting JTIII to get it fixed. Reed probably is a secondary player in any such decisions (I would guess that the President is calling the shots on this) but he is certainly part of the team advising the President on this stuff. Look at III's face on the sideline. Talk about misery. Everything you try, just doesn't work. On top of that, he has the pressure of his Father's legacy now weighing on him. He did not have that in the past, because III was successful early on at G-town. How do you think III feels seeing the program spiraling into the ground....the program your father built. Also, don't think for a second III doesn't hear the whispers about his Dad having an impact on III's job security. Again, never really came up previously, because III was successful early on at G-town. On top of that, it is nothing you can do about it mid-season. This is the team he recruited. He can't blame Esh. He can't blame the New Big East. Other teams are thriving and the league has respect nationally with multiple ranked teams and a reigning National champion. He is a great guy and solid coach. It is a sad situation. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 17, 2017 14:28:58 GMT -5
There's a lot said about JT Jr., JT3, the family, and its association with the university. Clearly, there are strong bonds there. I don't think JT Jr. is there every game at Verizon only because of his son (though I am sure that plays a role), but rather because the program itself is essentially his "baby" so to speak, in the sense that without him, none of it would be there.
Now, if there is going to be any change in the leadership of our program, I have to think that JT Jr. would be involved. He has a close relationship to Jack DeGioia, and DeGioia is ultimately the one who would be making the decisions here. So, even if DeGioia were to decide that it's time to move on, I think it's very likely that JT Jr. would have a huge influence in whoever the new coach was (unless JT3 was handled so haphazardly that it caused a total break between the Thompsons and Georgetown, which in my opinion, would be incredibly sad and unnecessary). So, even if there was a "new start" I think it's safe to say the Thompson influence would still be strong (again, unless they alienate the whole family).
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,416
|
Post by drquigley on Jan 17, 2017 15:11:34 GMT -5
It's probably my SFS degree talking but watching the Hoyas the last few years reminds me of the controversy surrounding battleships in the 1930's. The Navy establishment refused to see that battleships were becoming obsolete with the creation of naval aviation and aircraft carriers. Despite warnings from Bill Mitchell it took Pearl Harbor to convince them that battleships were just too easy targets for aircraft launched bombers and torpedo boats. Does anyone else see the similarity with today's basketball? Our big men "battleships" have become almost totally irrelevant. The 3 point shot and shot clock have completely changed the game. Pitino saw this first and has used his understanding of it to make a fortune. Those little guards and 6'5" - 6'7" swingmen just blow by the bigs or launch from long range. The game last night was a perfect example. Sadly, even worse disasters await when we play Nova and Creighton (assuming Watson is healthy). Our only success the last few years was when we had Otto Porter doing what guys like Josh Hart does for Nova. I'm sure JT3 sees this but can't get away from what he is most comfortable with. Until we either replace JT3 or start replacing the Hayes' and Govans with more LJ's and Walkers the downward spiral will continue. I don't necessarily agree that the "big man" per se is obsolete. Ewing and Olijawon and Mourning would still be forces in today's game(of course they were pretty atypical).But it is the TYPE of big man we have right now that is the problem. Hayes, Govan, Josh Smith - guys that are slow-footed, slow jumping big men. Today's bigs need to be able to be quick enough to stick with the slashers going to the hoop, and jump to alter shots, without just fouling. When they get the ball down low they need to make their move and get their shot off quickly, or kick it to the open shooters while they are still open shooters. Our bigs are just far too mechanical. The Ewings and Mournings were exceptions and I doubt players of that caliber, or big men of that "type", would ever consider GU. In the era of one and done they would naturally head to Kentucky or Carolina etc (see Niels Nerlin). But who needs them? Look at Nova. No Ewing Caliber big man the last 3 years but still dominant. A little thought exercise. Wouldn't you gladly lose every one of our big men over the past 3-4 years for another Otto? Put an Otto type talent on this team without our current big men and we would be competitive in the BE. Add a Brunson or a Cartwright or a Watson and we'd win a national championship. |
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jan 17, 2017 15:20:00 GMT -5
There's a lot said about JT Jr., JT3, the family, and its association with the university. Clearly, there are strong bonds there. I don't think JT Jr. is there every game at Verizon only because of his son (though I am sure that plays a role), but rather because the program itself is essentially his "baby" so to speak, in the sense that without him, none of it would be there. Now, if there is going to be any change in the leadership of our program, I have to think that JT Jr. would be involved. He has a close relationship to Jack DeGioia, and DeGioia is ultimately the one who would be making the decisions here. So, even if DeGioia were to decide that it's time to move on, I think it's very likely that JT Jr. would have a huge influence in whoever the new coach was (unless JT3 was handled so haphazardly that it caused a total break between the Thompsons and Georgetown, which in my opinion, would be incredibly sad and unnecessary). So, even if there was a "new start" I think it's safe to say the Thompson influence would still be strong (again, unless they alienate the whole family). Complicated situation indeed. Not so sure if DeGioia is making the decisions either. Their relationship is too close as to where JT2 is in charge of the Basketball program. He has that much clout. Either he'll decide when and if a change will be made or will be consulted. That is why this situation is very tricky. If DeGioia makes the decision of parting ways with III independent of JT2, he would lose JT2 and maybe all that comes with it (Nike/Jordan?,basketball alumni? etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 17, 2017 15:36:01 GMT -5
I had a whole row to myself lol. Glide, I turned around at the 5 minute mark and there was no one behind me in section 100. I jokingly sent a pic to the #hoyafans hoping it would show up during the fan pics. Damn that was brutal. lol right. unbelievable. |
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Jan 17, 2017 15:40:59 GMT -5
There's a lot said about JT Jr., JT3, the family, and its association with the university. Clearly, there are strong bonds there. I don't think JT Jr. is there every game at Verizon only because of his son (though I am sure that plays a role), but rather because the program itself is essentially his "baby" so to speak, in the sense that without him, none of it would be there. Now, if there is going to be any change in the leadership of our program, I have to think that JT Jr. would be involved. He has a close relationship to Jack DeGioia, and DeGioia is ultimately the one who would be making the decisions here. So, even if DeGioia were to decide that it's time to move on, I think it's very likely that JT Jr. would have a huge influence in whoever the new coach was (unless JT3 was handled so haphazardly that it caused a total break between the Thompsons and Georgetown, which in my opinion, would be incredibly sad and unnecessary). So, even if there was a "new start" I think it's safe to say the Thompson influence would still be strong (again, unless they alienate the whole family). This is true and it is what makes me feel even more apathetic about the program. Even if III steps down or is replaced, it will not be done without the strong influence of the Thompsons which essentially makes the change pointless. The program needs a fresh start with an approach that takes into account how the game is being played today. The program has lost all identity. I have no idea what Georgetown basketball stands for or is good at anymore. III keeps changing things, but the results keep getting worse. He moved away from the Princeton, replaced his staff twice in the last 4 or 5 years and continues to recuit players with no common qualities or obvious synergies between them. It is a mess with no direction from the top. What do all great coaches share? - a clear vision of how they want to play. It is what makes Pitino, Coach K, Calhoun, Calipari, Izzo, Boeheim so good and why they recruit so effectively. The recruit knows what they are getting into and the coach knows what type of player will succeed in the system. Without this vision - we get crap. Look at what is being done at UVA by Bennett - everyone is on the same page and he did not need 5 star MCDAA to find success quickly. I do not need to wait until the end of the season to see that this program is currently lost. We are 1-5 in the Big East, it has been a year since we beat someone in the BE other than Depaul or SJU, the product on the court is inconsistent at best, the players do not know how to make each other better on offense or defense and all of this has occurred in a weaker conference. |
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jan 17, 2017 15:51:30 GMT -5
There's a lot said about JT Jr., JT3, the family, and its association with the university. Clearly, there are strong bonds there. I don't think JT Jr. is there every game at Verizon only because of his son (though I am sure that plays a role), but rather because the program itself is essentially his "baby" so to speak, in the sense that without him, none of it would be there. Now, if there is going to be any change in the leadership of our program, I have to think that JT Jr. would be involved. He has a close relationship to Jack DeGioia, and DeGioia is ultimately the one who would be making the decisions here. So, even if DeGioia were to decide that it's time to move on, I think it's very likely that JT Jr. would have a huge influence in whoever the new coach was (unless JT3 was handled so haphazardly that it caused a total break between the Thompsons and Georgetown, which in my opinion, would be incredibly sad and unnecessary). So, even if there was a "new start" I think it's safe to say the Thompson influence would still be strong (again, unless they alienate the whole family). This is true and it is what makes me feel even more apathetic about the program. Even if III steps down or is replaced, it will not be done without the strong influence of the Thompsons which essentially makes the change pointless. The program needs a fresh start with an approach that takes into account how the game is being played today. The program has lost all identity. I have no idea what Georgetown basketball stands for or is good at anymore. III keeps changing things, but the results keep getting worse. He moved away from the Princeton, replaced his staff twice in the last 4 or 5 years and continues to recuit players with no common qualities or obvious synergies between them. It is a mess with no direction from the top.
What do all great coaches share? - a clear vision of how they want to play. It is what makes Pitino, Coach K, Calhoun, Calipari, Izzo, Boeheim so good and why they recruit so effectively. The recruit knows what they are getting into and the coach knows what type of player will succeed in the system. Without this vision - we get crap. Look at what is being done at UVA by Bennett - everyone is on the same page and he did not need 5 star MCDAA to find success quickly.I do not need to wait until the end of the season to see that this program is currently lost. We are 1-5 in the Big East, it has been a year since we beat someone in the BE other than Depaul or SJU, the product on the court is inconsistent at best, the players do not know how to make each other better on offense or defense and all of this has occurred in a weaker conference. Agree with the bolded. |
|
