|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 16, 2017 15:54:42 GMT -5
Good call.. I forgot about Campbell but I don't feel he checked out either.. Also, Campbell barely played. So to the extent he checked out, I am not sure how much it would have affected the team... You can checkout without playing. Not saying that applies to said player but if a player becomes a cancer sometimes letting him go can change the dynamic. Jeremy Shockey comes to mind. The giants were going nowhere and shockey was trying to gather a group of players to get Coughlon fired. Then Shockey got injured and Coughlon and Eli Manning went on to win the super bowl and upset the Perfect Team. |
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Nov 16, 2017 16:33:13 GMT -5
I've said before on this board that I'm not an X's and O's guy. I just love watching college basketball in general and the Hoyas in particular. I do have one "technical" question. Do you think this new, uptempo offense is helping our shooting, especially 3 pointers? it seems like Govan and Derrickson shoot much better when they are trailing a fast break or early in the offense. Last year they (especially Derickson) didn't seem comfortable throwing up 3 pointers late in the shot clock after having to set and run around picks for 20 seconds. They seem much more comfortable shooting off a dribble than shooting off a pass while stationary. I think guys aren't afraid to shoot. Marcus took a crap deep three and was pulled where as Kaleb took corner threes that were wide open and just missed. I am sure Ewing is highlighting how one was a very good shot and another was one he doesn't want to see. Govan & MD aren't hesitating at all when they get a three on the secondary break and that is fantastic. If we can avoid the dumb turnovers, we suddenly can play with a lot of teams. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Nov 16, 2017 16:39:28 GMT -5
For anyone who missed the game here's the entire game on youtube:
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,537 
|
Post by bostonfan on Nov 16, 2017 16:52:34 GMT -5
I've said before on this board that I'm not an X's and O's guy. I just love watching college basketball in general and the Hoyas in particular. I do have one "technical" question. Do you think this new, uptempo offense is helping our shooting, especially 3 pointers? it seems like Govan and Derrickson shoot much better when they are trailing a fast break or early in the offense. Last year they (especially Derickson) didn't seem comfortable throwing up 3 pointers late in the shot clock after having to set and run around picks for 20 seconds. They seem much more comfortable shooting off a dribble than shooting off a pass while stationary. I think guys aren't afraid to shoot. Marcus took a crap deep three and was pulled where as Kaleb took corner threes that were wide open and just missed. I am sure Ewing is highlighting how one was a very good shot and another was one he doesn't want to see. Govan & MD aren't hesitating at all when they get a three on the secondary break and that is fantastic. If we can avoid the dumb turnovers, we suddenly can play with a lot of teams. Taking care of the ball and reducing turnovers will have a huge impact on how this team performs this year. If they can get the turnover number down to 8-12 a game they should be competitive in pretty much every game this year. With the increased pace they are playing with so far, they will get more possessions each game, and if you reduce turnovers that means more shots each game. I think when they play better competition and more aggressive defense they will not shot as high a percentage as they have in the last two games and those extra shots are going to be needed. The number of unforced turnovers and empty possessions the last two seasons were so frustrating, and it made it impossible for those teams, already working with very little margin for error, to overcome those turnovers Playing faster, and playing a handful of freshman, make some turnovers unavoidable, but if they can focus on reducing them as much as possible they are going to win some games that no one expected. |
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,596
|
Post by This Just In on Nov 16, 2017 16:59:19 GMT -5
This is a very, very good question. Inside the Program: It means a lot to make the tournament. Job security, the optics that the program is on the right track, and optimism. Outside the Program: Some people still think JT3 is the head coach. For more informed people, either result happening is viewed as different coach same Hoya results Or the disclaimer that "Patrick needs a second year before judging his coaching prowess." It's always better to make the tournament, even as a 12/13 seed than not at all. You need to be in it to win it, after all. Or take the 2001 Esherick team. They were a 10 seed, beat a 7, and then only had to beat a 15 to get to the Sweet 16. It might not be the most glorious postseason run, but a Sweet 16 is a Sweet 16. Also, Ewing making the tournament in his first season would be fantastic - it would get an enormous amount of press attention, and at least that first weekend we would get plenty of good attention. I cannot think of anything better for the program (aside from winning in the NCAA tournament). It would fuel recruiting and be great in a number of ways. As far as people outside the program, who cares what they think? If we make the tournament, all the attention will be on Ewing making his first appearance as coach. So people will quickly learn JT3 is no longer there. Also, if we make it as a 12 seed, for example, it's impossible to be "same results." The problem with our early NCAA exits was that we were a high seed and lost to a low seed. If we go into the tournament as a 12, it will be "expected" that we will lose. If Ewing gets into the tournament at all as a double-digit seed this season or next, I think that alone will be seen as a major accomplishment. If we lost once we got there, it might hurt us as fans, but it won't materially hurt the team or Georgetown's reputation in any way. And don't worry about losing as a high seed. Given our schedule, no way that happens this year, even if our team kills it in the Big East. What percentage of people outside of this program do you think even remember that the Hoyas were a higher seed and lost to several lower seeds? What people do remember is that Gtown loses in the 1st rd or 2nd rd. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,396
|
Post by EtomicB on Nov 16, 2017 17:12:13 GMT -5
It's always better to make the tournament, even as a 12/13 seed than not at all. You need to be in it to win it, after all. Or take the 2001 Esherick team. They were a 10 seed, beat a 7, and then only had to beat a 15 to get to the Sweet 16. It might not be the most glorious postseason run, but a Sweet 16 is a Sweet 16. Also, Ewing making the tournament in his first season would be fantastic - it would get an enormous amount of press attention, and at least that first weekend we would get plenty of good attention. I cannot think of anything better for the program (aside from winning in the NCAA tournament). It would fuel recruiting and be great in a number of ways. As far as people outside the program, who cares what they think? If we make the tournament, all the attention will be on Ewing making his first appearance as coach. So people will quickly learn JT3 is no longer there. Also, if we make it as a 12 seed, for example, it's impossible to be "same results." The problem with our early NCAA exits was that we were a high seed and lost to a low seed. If we go into the tournament as a 12, it will be "expected" that we will lose. If Ewing gets into the tournament at all as a double-digit seed this season or next, I think that alone will be seen as a major accomplishment. If we lost once we got there, it might hurt us as fans, but it won't materially hurt the team or Georgetown's reputation in any way. And don't worry about losing as a high seed. Given our schedule, no way that happens this year, even if our team kills it in the Big East. What people do remember is that Gtown loses in the 1st rd or 2nd rd. As someone who lives in CT and talks CBB all the time with these obnoxious Husky fans, I feel it's about 95% of folks outside the program know who the Hoyas lost to.. |
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Nov 16, 2017 17:59:27 GMT -5
For anyone who missed the game here's the entire game on youtube: I may have missed it but did they do this for Jax ST? Hope this is a season long occurrence. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Nov 16, 2017 18:51:21 GMT -5
JTHoya, thanks for the link. Started watching at work. Couldn't wait to get home to watch it on a bigger screen. Man, I can certainly see what the excitement surrounding Govan is all about. He is playing with so much more confidence and stepping into his role as leader nicely.
|
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 16, 2017 20:37:42 GMT -5
I think guys aren't afraid to shoot. Marcus took a crap deep three and was pulled where as Kaleb took corner threes that were wide open and just missed. I am sure Ewing is highlighting how one was a very good shot and another was one he doesn't want to see. Govan & MD aren't hesitating at all when they get a three on the secondary break and that is fantastic. If we can avoid the dumb turnovers, we suddenly can play with a lot of teams. Taking care of the ball and reducing turnovers will have a huge impact on how this team performs this year. If they can get the turnover number down to 8-12 a game they should be competitive in pretty much every game this year. With the increased pace they are playing with so far, they will get more possessions each game, and if you reduce turnovers that means more shots each game. I think when they play better competition and more aggressive defense they will not shot as high a percentage as they have in the last two games and those extra shots are going to be needed. The number of unforced turnovers and empty possessions the last two seasons were so frustrating, and it made it impossible for those teams, already working with very little margin for error, to overcome those turnovers Playing faster, and playing a handful of freshman, make some turnovers unavoidable, but if they can focus on reducing them as much as possible they are going to win some games that no one expected. Most of the turnovers are on the fast break transition on 3-1 or 2-0. It's just a concerted effort to run which they haven't been used to and the turnovers are just errant passes for what would have been easy fast break finishes. Once they get more experience and learn where to pass the ball or where people like the pass on the fast break these turnovers shouldngondoen rapidly. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Nov 16, 2017 21:11:28 GMT -5
What percentage of people outside of this program do you think even remember that the Hoyas were a higher seed and lost to several lower seeds? What people do remember is that Gtown loses in the 1st rd or 2nd rd. I mean, isn’t that the definition of an upset? A better team losing to one that’s a good bit worse? That’s why upsets are notable and the “Cinderella” teams get so much attention. Nobody cares about teams who go into the tournament seeded 10-13 who lose the first weekend to much better teams. That’s why if we were a 12 and lost in the first round it wouldn’t be comparable to the losses we had in 2010 or 2013, for example. It’s hugely unlikely but if we got to the tournament this year as a low seed and got eliminated in the first game, the story would be that Ewing brought the Hoyas back quickly - not the loss. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 16, 2017 23:14:03 GMT -5
I've said before on this board that I'm not an X's and O's guy. I just love watching college basketball in general and the Hoyas in particular. I do have one "technical" question. Do you think this new, uptempo offense is helping our shooting, especially 3 pointers? it seems like Govan and Derrickson shoot much better when they are trailing a fast break or early in the offense. Last year they (especially Derickson) didn't seem comfortable throwing up 3 pointers late in the shot clock after having to set and run around picks for 20 seconds. They seem much more comfortable shooting off a dribble than shooting off a pass while stationary. Generally, three pointers on the break are great shots -- they are often very, very open, and I think players benefit from stepping into them. However, there's almost no one who shoots better off a dribble than catch and shoot. If you are saying even just the little step forward dribble with no one there, maybe it is at parity, but most people shoot catch and shoot significantly better. |
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,596
|
Post by This Just In on Nov 17, 2017 8:28:20 GMT -5
What percentage of people outside of this program do you think even remember that the Hoyas were a higher seed and lost to several lower seeds? What people do remember is that Gtown loses in the 1st rd or 2nd rd. I mean, isn’t that the definition of an upset? A better team losing to one that’s a good bit worse? That’s why upsets are notable and the “Cinderella” teams get so much attention. Nobody cares about teams who go into the tournament seeded 10-13 who lose the first weekend to much better teams. That’s why if we were a 12 and lost in the first round it wouldn’t be comparable to the losses we had in 2010 or 2013, for example. It’s hugely unlikely but if we got to the tournament this year as a low seed and got eliminated in the first game, the story would be that Ewing brought the Hoyas back quickly - not the loss. Of course they do care. When they are filling out brackets and see Gtown's name, you think the Hoyas will get predicted to move to the Sweet 16 or will people try to predict which rounds of 1 or 2 will the Hoyas lose in? I have enjoyed the discussion and you can have the last word. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Nov 17, 2017 12:47:25 GMT -5
We are playing a better brand of basketball this season for both players and fans. More players involved and more shots put up. The garbage we called an offense last season has unplayable and unwatchable. That's why we couldn't recruit or keep players. I am planning to go to games this season after a long hiatus. After two games, our tempo is slightly faster than last year's. So while the perception might exist that the offense is faster, it's really not all that faster so far (and in the Jacksonville game was actually slower). That may change as we play more games, of course. I do think the slight increase in the tempo is mostly our getting shots off more quickly, and having more fastbreaks. There are certainly some stylistic differences between the two offenses, but then again, JT3 abandoned the true Princeton offense years ago, and some fans never seemed to take notice. Our offensive possession time is currently 35th in the country and two seconds faster than last year (I believe our fastest year under JTIII). That's not slight. Overall pace might be close because teams are trying to slow the game down, but our offense is a lot faster. |
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 17, 2017 13:36:21 GMT -5
After two games, our tempo is slightly faster than last year's. So while the perception might exist that the offense is faster, it's really not all that faster so far (and in the Jacksonville game was actually slower). That may change as we play more games, of course. I do think the slight increase in the tempo is mostly our getting shots off more quickly, and having more fastbreaks. There are certainly some stylistic differences between the two offenses, but then again, JT3 abandoned the true Princeton offense years ago, and some fans never seemed to take notice. Our offensive possession time is currently 35th in the country and two seconds faster than last year (I believe our fastest year under JTIII). That's not slight. Overall pace might be close because teams are trying to slow the game down, but our offense is a lot faster. Just looking at it it's faster. It's not aimlessly passing around the perimeter wasting time. The Princeton had its day, but the freedom of movement rules killed it as a viable offense. because it's a time wasting offense but is predicated on playing time wasting defense. With freedom of movement rules you can't play stifling man to man defense. So you have to outacore your opponent. |
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,656
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Nov 17, 2017 13:45:40 GMT -5
I alway felt that the Princeton was an offense which afforded a weak team a chance at beating a better team. Win by limiting possessions and execution. If you have horses like Green, Ewing, Summers, Macklin, Hibbert, Wright, Monroe, Freeman and many others, why on earth would you play a methodical and conservative brand of basketball? Go out there and punch your opponent in the mouth!
|
|
|
|
Post by gamp on Nov 17, 2017 14:25:15 GMT -5
I don't know why you do it, other than it worked. They did go to the Final Four.
|
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 17, 2017 15:26:09 GMT -5
I alway felt that the Princeton was an offense which afforded a weak team a chance at beating a better team. Win by limiting possessions and execution. If you have horses like Green, Ewing, Summers, Macklin, Hibbert, Wright, Monroe, Freeman and many others, why on earth would you play a methodical and conservative brand of basketball? Go out there and punch your opponent in the mouth! Well the media was calling it Princeton Offensr on Steroids during the final four run. It alcually worked until the rules changes for freepnof movement crippled the defense needed to keep scoring low. Imaging if they banned the 3pt shot. That would destroy a lot of teams systems. |
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 17, 2017 15:45:03 GMT -5
The other problem was
1) you needed shooters who could knock down wide open 2s and 3s.
The problem was we couldn't recruit his who could shot. Lucobk was a disaster as a shooter. And 3pt specialists Domingo and Cameron couldn't shoot 3s. *Hollis lived up to his 3pt hype.
2. You had to practice the system over and over again. And without total desicatiob by everybody it falls apart quickly and then you don't get results which makes people not want to work at it even more.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,604
|
Post by prhoya on Nov 17, 2017 16:17:22 GMT -5
The other problem was 1) you needed shooters who could knock down wide open 2s and 3s. The problem was we couldn't recruit his who could shot. Lucobk was a disaster as a shooter. And 3pt specialists Domingo and Cameron couldn't shoot 3s. *Hollis lived up to his 3pt hype. 2. You had to practice the system over and over again. And without total desicatiob by everybody it falls apart quickly and then you don't get results which makes people not want to work at it even more. Add the lack of proper conditioning to keep the constant movement required in the Princeton (or look alike) offense and to keep up with your man on defense without getting tired. |
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,656
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Nov 17, 2017 17:27:24 GMT -5
If you have 4-5 NBA level players on your team, the Princeton looks good. Go figure. 😀
|
|
