|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Feb 8, 2020 18:03:51 GMT -5
The way I see it is that we need 8-9 non project players that can start.
|
|
|
Post by practice on Feb 9, 2020 13:49:59 GMT -5
Depth is overrated until you have foul problems or injuries. With a health Y7 and McClung, the Hoyas have a serviceable 7 man rotation with Muresan and Tim I. as emergency reserves. Should Mac and Omer not be available ... well that will be something to see. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, but the 1998-99 St. John's Redmen with Bootsy Thornton, Ron Artest, Erick Barkley, and Lavor Postell played basically a 6 man rotation ... but had a few guys on the bench. That team finished 28-9, 14-4 and made the Regional Finals. It'll be interesting to see if Wilson's alleged redshirting will end due to the Next Man Up situation.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,850
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Feb 24, 2020 8:21:21 GMT -5
Bump.
|
|
wolveribe
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 315
|
Post by wolveribe on Feb 24, 2020 8:33:55 GMT -5
The ideal scenario is 8 full rotation guys; 1 fringe bench player and 4 developmental/transfer guys.
Having 10-11 players really doesn't help.
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by bostonfan on Feb 24, 2020 10:15:58 GMT -5
The ideal scenario is 8 full rotation guys; 1 fringe bench player and 4 developmental/transfer guys. Having 10-11 players really doesn't help. I agree. Having 8 guys with fairly defined roles/playing time expectations is probably the most efficient use of a roster in college. If you can have 2 more players, usually underclassmen, who can come in and contribute (or at least not hurt your team) when the team had foul issue/injuries then that should be all you need. The other 3 scholarships should be used with guys who come into the program understanding that their first year is going to be a red shirt year or mostly a development year where playing time is going to be limited. If one of those players has to sit out for a transfer reason or recovering from a serious injury then you fill out the roster and hopefully avoid players complaining about playing time and getting dissatisfied with the program. the key to making this work on a long term basis is getting those "developmental" players to grow into contributing players the following year. I think some recruits probably understand they need to work on their games and develop as freshman, but not too many of them are going to deal with more than one year of not getting some playing time. Having recruits buy into these roles during the recruitment process is huge. The staff needs to be upfront with the players they recruit and explain to them how their careers are likely to unfold if they commit. It doesn't work all the time, as we all see with the high number of transfers from every program. Now if you start getting some highly rated recruits those guys have different expectations and will want immediate playing time, which they probably deserve if the staff has evaluated them correctly.
|
|
|
Post by oldbigeast on Feb 24, 2020 11:39:10 GMT -5
You want a full roster with guys whom you believe have the potential to contribute in games. Either right away or down the line. Depth is not overrated. Thinking you can get by long-term without it is.
|
|
|
Post by oldbigeast on Feb 24, 2020 11:40:02 GMT -5
What if we entered this season with 8 players because we were worried about too much depth? Where would we be now?
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,641
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Feb 24, 2020 12:22:02 GMT -5
Can’t structure a team around “what if our top 4 of 8 players decide to transfer mid-season” What happed was extremely rare.
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by bostonfan on Feb 24, 2020 12:48:54 GMT -5
What if we entered this season with 8 players because we were worried about too much depth? Where would we be now? I don't think anyone is saying they should only have 8 scholarship players on the team to start a year. They should use all of the scholarships, or at least 12 of them if they felt they needed to save one for class balance for the following year, every year. The point is how you construct your roster and the expectations each player has about playing time so you hopefully don't get into a situation where multiple players leave because they don't feel like they got the playing time they hoped for. Having 11 or 12 guys who all think they deserve significant minutes every game just does not work.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 24, 2020 13:20:30 GMT -5
What if we entered this season with 8 players because we were worried about too much depth? Where would we be now? I don't think anyone is saying they should only have 8 scholarship players on the team to start a year. They should use all of the scholarships, or at least 12 of them if they felt they needed to save one for class balance for the following year, every year. The point is how you construct your roster and the expectations each player has about playing time so you hopefully don't get into a situation where multiple players leave because they don't feel like they got the playing time they hoped for. Having 11 or 12 guys who all think they deserve significant minutes every game just does not work.This is spot on. You have 13 scholarships and should be fielding a roster of 12/13 guys, all of whom can come into the game in a pinch. That said, I think you really need a rotation of 7-9 guys who are expected to play a fair amount, with the remaining players getting very little time. A good example of this is Vee Sanford. He was a really solid guard, a good player, and he'd easily start on any of the teams we've had over the last few years. But, he played on a team with three excellent guards Austin Freeman, Chris Wright, Jason Clark (two of whom were SG's like Sanford), and a great wing in Hollis Thompson. So, there wasn't much playing time available and he really wasn't a rotation guy (which displeased HoyaTalk at the time). But, the benefit is that the remaining guys knew they were solid rotation players. If Ewing learned anything from this year I truly hope he learned that you simply cannot do the hockey style substitutions he was trying at the beginning of the season. Not only does it kill the flow of the game, but it's just not an effective way to play. Aside from coaching defense, I think the biggest in-game weakness has been roster management. This has largely become a moot point this season because Ewing really has few options, but it was a problem before everybody transferred because it was simply ineffective. And, as others have mentioned, you cannot manage a roster well if you stick with guys like Mourning over guys like LeBlanc.
|
|
|
Post by oldbigeast on Feb 24, 2020 14:42:12 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is saying they should only have 8 scholarship players on the team to start a year. They should use all of the scholarships, or at least 12 of them if they felt they needed to save one for class balance for the following year, every year. The point is how you construct your roster and the expectations each player has about playing time so you hopefully don't get into a situation where multiple players leave because they don't feel like they got the playing time they hoped for. Having 11 or 12 guys who all think they deserve significant minutes every game just does not work.This is spot on. You have 13 scholarships and should be fielding a roster of 12/13 guys, all of whom can come into the game in a pinch. That said, I think you really need a rotation of 7-9 guys who are expected to play a fair amount, with the remaining players getting very little time. A good example of this is Vee Sanford. He was a really solid guard, a good player, and he'd easily start on any of the teams we've had over the last few years. But, he played on a team with three excellent guards Austin Freeman, Chris Wright, Jason Clark (two of whom were SG's like Sanford), and a great wing in Hollis Thompson. So, there wasn't much playing time available and he really wasn't a rotation guy (which displeased HoyaTalk at the time). But, the benefit is that the remaining guys knew they were solid rotation players. If Ewing learned anything from this year I truly hope he learned that you simply cannot do the hockey style substitutions he was trying at the beginning of the season. Not only does it kill the flow of the game, but it's just not an effective way to play. Aside from coaching defense, I think the biggest in-game weakness has been roster management. This has largely become a moot point this season because Ewing really has few options, but it was a problem before everybody transferred because it was simply ineffective. And, as others have mentioned, you cannot manage a roster well if you stick with guys like Mourning over guys like LeBlanc. Explain to me how you recruit a HM player and tell him, "Don't expect any PT unless it's a dire situation." People already lose their minds around here when recruits aren't ranked high enough. So if we recruit a 4* PG this year then along with it or in the next year we need to recruit a 2*? you know, just so everyone knows the pecking order? I'd rather have the competition and let it shake out.
|
|
|
Post by oldbigeast on Feb 24, 2020 14:45:23 GMT -5
Out of the 4 players who left, only 1 player is assumed left because of his role (Akinjo). I believe that the other substitution and rotation patterns would have worked themselves out. We have a coach that is seeing these situations as the head decider for the first time. Even after UNCG, I had confidence that Pat would figure out substitution patterns and lineups that worked and someone would have been on the bench unhappy. And maybe that player leaves. Or two players leave. But that should be because other guys outperformed them on the court. Not because we were scared of creating a competitive environment. Which Pat seems intent on doing.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 24, 2020 15:15:38 GMT -5
Explain to me how you recruit a HM player and tell him, "Don't expect any PT unless it's a dire situation." People already lose their minds around here when recruits aren't ranked high enough. So if we recruit a 4* PG this year then along with it or in the next year we need to recruit a 2*? you know, just so everyone knows the pecking order? I'd rather have the competition and let it shake out. I do not claim to be an expert on recruiting, but other teams like Villanova do it, so it's clearly possible. Of course, when you are like Villanova and have two recent championships, it's easier to convince guys to come and sit on the bench and/or redshirt. I agree with you that competition is good. And, as a coach, I would certainly allow every player to take a shot at getting playing time, or working themselves into the rotation. But, once you evaluate who the better players are, you need to shorten the rotation and go with them. I think there is a big misconception between depth and having people on the roster. A deep team has quality players and backups at each position. The starters will still usually be better than the next couple of players off the bench, but you are rarely going to have a team where player 10 is as good as player 6. And, it's usually a big drop, too. This is not controversial. Nearly every championship team has a main rotation of 7-9 players. It's rare to see a rotation at 10+.
|
|
|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Feb 24, 2020 15:20:18 GMT -5
I think we have to get back to just recruiting guys who can play. Let them duke it out in practice. Then say, "Look, we will make a determination based on how well you played in practice." Competition. And, you can't argue with success.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 24, 2020 15:21:28 GMT -5
Out of the 4 players who left, only 1 player is assumed left because of his role (Akinjo). I believe that the other substitution and rotation patterns would have worked themselves out. We have a coach that is seeing these situations as the head decider for the first time. Even after UNCG, I had confidence that Pat would figure out substitution patterns and lineups that worked and someone would have been on the bench unhappy. And maybe that player leaves. Or two players leave. But that should be because other guys outperformed them on the court. Not because we were scared of creating a competitive environment. Which Pat seems intent on doing. We are almost at three full seasons where he is the "head decider." That excuse is pretty much done, at this point. People have been saying this for three years. How much longer does he need? This season says nothing (positive or negative) about Ewing and roster management, since the 4 player departure robbed him of the ability to make choices.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Feb 24, 2020 15:49:31 GMT -5
Out of the 4 players who left, only 1 player is assumed left because of his role (Akinjo). I believe that the other substitution and rotation patterns would have worked themselves out. We have a coach that is seeing these situations as the head decider for the first time. Even after UNCG, I had confidence that Pat would figure out substitution patterns and lineups that worked and someone would have been on the bench unhappy. And maybe that player leaves. Or two players leave. But that should be because other guys outperformed them on the court. Not because we were scared of creating a competitive environment. Which Pat seems intent on doing. We are almost at three full seasons where he is the "head decider." That excuse is pretty much done, at this point. People have been saying this for three years. How much longer does he need? This season says nothing (positive or negative) about Ewing and roster management, since the 4 player departure robbed him of the ability to make choices. Agree with this. You also need to hit on one or two high profile, highly ranked kids. We haven't done that. This years class is a prime example. Even if every kid is an overachiever, we are the 4th ranked class in the big east in a year we need a HUGE class due to roster turnover. This year we need a 1 or 2 ranked class period in the big east! Talent wins. Development helps. Roster continuity helps. If we keep pulling kids from the 100 to 200 range, we will be a middling team at best (vs. lower quarter that we have been in Ewing tenure). I thought this year was tournament or bust. Now next year is tournament or massive recruiting class or bust.
|
|
|
Post by oldbigeast on Feb 24, 2020 17:38:48 GMT -5
We are almost at three full seasons where he is the "head decider." That excuse is pretty much done, at this point. People have been saying this for three years. How much longer does he need? This season says nothing (positive or negative) about Ewing and roster management, since the 4 player departure robbed him of the ability to make choices. Agree with this. You also need to hit on one or two high profile, highly ranked kids. We haven't done that. This years class is a prime example. Even if every kid is an overachiever, we are the 4th ranked class in the big east in a year we need a HUGE class due to roster turnover. This year we need a 1 or 2 ranked class period in the big east! Talent wins. Development helps. Roster continuity helps. If we keep pulling kids from the 100 to 200 range, we will be a middling team at best (vs. lower quarter that we have been in Ewing tenure). I thought this year was tournament or bust. Now next year is tournament or massive recruiting class or bust. Not an excuse. it is the reality we hired a head coach who had never been a head coach on any level. So essentially we hired a project. I did not expect to get a fully formed top level division one coach from day one I expected him to struggle with rotations and roster management. I expected him to take longer than one season to figure this out. what my expectation was was that we would see progress on the coaching fronts in some recruiting wins would follow after he showed something on the court. I did not expect Patrick Ewing's name to hold any weight with five-star recruits or even high four-star recruits we are landing about the rating of recruit that I expected youing to be able to land pre-on court success. But I guess by some of the fan bases ready bake logic Ewing was supposed to come in and year three should have been a title run or bust or top of the Big East and by that same logic Malcolm Wilson should already be starting in scoring a double-double because projects should hit the ground running right away.
|
|
|
Post by oldbigeast on Feb 24, 2020 18:19:41 GMT -5
Agree with this. You also need to hit on one or two high profile, highly ranked kids. We haven't done that. This years class is a prime example. Even if every kid is an overachiever, we are the 4th ranked class in the big east in a year we need a HUGE class due to roster turnover. This year we need a 1 or 2 ranked class period in the big east! Talent wins. Development helps. Roster continuity helps. If we keep pulling kids from the 100 to 200 range, we will be a middling team at best (vs. lower quarter that we have been in Ewing tenure). I thought this year was tournament or bust. Now next year is tournament or massive recruiting class or bust. Not an excuse. it is the reality we hired a head coach who had never been a head coach on any level. So essentially we hired a project. I did not expect to get a fully formed top level division one coach from day one I expected him to struggle with rotations and roster management. I expected him to take longer than one season to figure this out. what my expectation was was that we would see progress on the coaching fronts in some recruiting wins would follow after he showed something on the court. I did not expect Patrick Ewing's name to hold any weight with five-star recruits or even high four-star recruits we are landing about the rating of recruit that I expected youing to be able to land pre-on court success. But I guess by some of the fan bases ready bake logic Ewing was supposed to come in and year three should have been a title run or bust or top of the Big East and by that same logic Malcolm Wilson should already be starting in scoring a double-double because projects should hit the ground running right away. Excuse my incoherent post. Was trying talk to text and driving. My points: -We hired a "project" coach so some sort of learning curve should be expected. -Ewing's 1985 college rep and 90s NBA rep are not impressive to 5* bball players because most know current NBA guys personally already. And they were not born when he was in the NBA and 1985 is ancient history to them -Have we seen any improvement with coaching and recruiting in year three?
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Feb 24, 2020 18:52:50 GMT -5
Not an excuse. it is the reality we hired a head coach who had never been a head coach on any level. So essentially we hired a project. I did not expect to get a fully formed top level division one coach from day one I expected him to struggle with rotations and roster management. I expected him to take longer than one season to figure this out. what my expectation was was that we would see progress on the coaching fronts in some recruiting wins would follow after he showed something on the court. I did not expect Patrick Ewing's name to hold any weight with five-star recruits or even high four-star recruits we are landing about the rating of recruit that I expected youing to be able to land pre-on court success. But I guess by some of the fan bases ready bake logic Ewing was supposed to come in and year three should have been a title run or bust or top of the Big East and by that same logic Malcolm Wilson should already be starting in scoring a double-double because projects should hit the ground running right away. Excuse my incoherent post. Was trying talk to text and driving. My points: -We hired a "project" coach so some sort of learning curve should be expected. -Ewing's 1985 college rep and 90s NBA rep are not impressive to 5* bball players because most know current NBA guys personally already. And they were not born when he was in the NBA and 1985 is ancient history to them -Have we seen any improvement with coaching and recruiting in year three? I think you've hit on the major disconnect between Hoya fans. You have those who think we should have hired an experienced coach out of the "coaching search". Instead we hired Ewing, so they're mad at the admin. They tried to give Ewing a chance but were expecting immediate results so have been disappointed. They assume given our spending that we should be successful...which is a fair thought but you can't buy your way to wins in CBB like the MLB. Then we have those who realized that Pat has never been a head coach, so there is time for growth there. That Pat has never been in CBB recruiting circles, so there is time for growth there. That Pat hadn't been on the court in decades so no longer had the cache with players that we feel emotionally. That Georgetown in general is a long ways away from the early/mid 80s. That he has worked hard at his (coaching) craft after stardom but hasn't given up. Personally, I believe that Pat continues to improve, is willing to give the effort, and has the X&Os chops (and is willing to evolve). Is he perfect yet? No. Should Hoyas fans expect more (especially with spending in mind)? Yes. I'm willing to give him more time to develop the talent he has, try to get better talent, and bring gameplans. Others aren't willing to wait...so it's going to be a LONG few months (or more) in Hoyatalk land.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Feb 25, 2020 9:41:27 GMT -5
Agree with this. You also need to hit on one or two high profile, highly ranked kids. We haven't done that. This years class is a prime example. Even if every kid is an overachiever, we are the 4th ranked class in the big east in a year we need a HUGE class due to roster turnover. This year we need a 1 or 2 ranked class period in the big east! Talent wins. Development helps. Roster continuity helps. If we keep pulling kids from the 100 to 200 range, we will be a middling team at best (vs. lower quarter that we have been in Ewing tenure). I thought this year was tournament or bust. Now next year is tournament or massive recruiting class or bust. Not an excuse. it is the reality we hired a head coach who had never been a head coach on any level. So essentially we hired a project. I did not expect to get a fully formed top level division one coach from day one I expected him to struggle with rotations and roster management. I expected him to take longer than one season to figure this out. what my expectation was was that we would see progress on the coaching fronts in some recruiting wins would follow after he showed something on the court. I did not expect Patrick Ewing's name to hold any weight with five-star recruits or even high four-star recruits we are landing about the rating of recruit that I expected youing to be able to land pre-on court success. But I guess by some of the fan bases ready bake logic Ewing was supposed to come in and year three should have been a title run or bust or top of the Big East and by that same logic Malcolm Wilson should already be starting in scoring a double-double because projects should hit the ground running right away. This makes some sense. I'm not looking at title or bust, I am simply looking at a tournament team. Let's be honest, making the tournament is pretty damn easy nowadays and we aren't doing it. To your point, I think Ewing is improving greatly but maybe he needs to revisit his staff. It just seems like he is working his ass off on the recruiting front when a lot of that lead work needs to be done by your assistants. Tony Skinn was at the Dematha/St. Paul game last night, not Kevin Willard. I know Waheed, Orr & Kirby are recruiting kids but maybe we need a guy who is a bit more tied into the AAU circuit and is a younger guy who might be a bit more relatable to these kids
|
|