|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jul 12, 2020 23:45:23 GMT -5
I had been a JT3 supporter and thought that a lot of the criticism of the system was overstated by fans (after all, the Wiz ran it, right?). But listening to these podcasts -- I guess I could not have been more wrong. It was interesting to hear CW, AF, JC, and HS talk about Georgetown as a school and social scene positively, but it is really sobering to hear them talk about how the system hurt them both as college players and professionally. I am not sure how Sims or Clark saying they wish they could have gone to Florida or Maryland from a basketball perspective is going to be helpful to the program, but it is interesting to hear their opinion nonetheless. And they clearly did like Georgetown overall, so there's that. But for those who got on me for expecting discussion of the Ohio game, if you can say you wish you went to a different program for basketball, I think Ohio is fair game. (And to be fair, I am about half way through the podcast, so if they do talk about Ohio too, then I take that back.)
|
|
beenaround
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,475
|
Post by beenaround on Jul 13, 2020 12:01:09 GMT -5
I mentioned previously that I happen to know a guy who was a Wizards scout when Markel worked out for the team. He had said that the Gtown system definitely was a negative in terms of guards in the NBA. However, he also said the league liked how the big men operated in the system, especially in terms of passing. So, I can see the complaints of C Wright, Austin and Jason..but Henry, i find surprising,. He went from a guy nailed to the bench for more than two years , to playing two FULL NBA seasons (over 75 games each) and parts of two others. WIth his talent level, I do not see him having a better NBA career than that coming out of Duke or Kansas.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jul 13, 2020 12:39:33 GMT -5
With Henry, the light bulb didn't really come on for him until his senior year and then he flourished. Was that the system's fault or credit? Or was it a player finally listening to what Coach had been drilling into him for 3 years? www.baltimoresun.com/sports/nba/bs-sp-henry-sims-nba-draft-0626-20120626-story.html"You hear stories about the player that's the first to get to the gym and the last to leave," said Georgetown coach John Thompson III. "Henry was not that guy for three years.
"And then all of a sudden going into senior year, he decided to commit himself to his craft and commit himself to basketball, and he saw the results."III's style of play favored forwards and centers. Your traditional type of guard, not so much. Kinda like Phil Jackson's triangle. It was quite evident given who III put into the NBA: Green,Otto, Monroe, Hibbert, etc. DSR and Starks were good college guards. Same with Wright and Freeman. However, did III ever recruit NBA potential/caliber guards during his tenure? If anything, I think the system would prevent those caliber of players from even considering G-town, since they couldn't "showcase their skills".
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jul 13, 2020 12:50:39 GMT -5
III's style of play favored forwards and centers. Your traditional type of guard, not so much. Kinda like Phil Jackson's triangle. It was quite evident given who III put into the NBA: Green,Otto, Monroe, Hibbert, etc. DSR and Starks were good college guards. Same with Wright and Freeman.
However, did III ever recruit NBA potential/caliber guards during his tenure?
If anything, I think the system would prevent those caliber of players from even considering G-town, since they couldn't "showcase their skills". If you are a McDonald's All-American, you are NBA caliber. If you are at that high of a level, you can make it in the NBA and have the potential to do so. Those guys played here and couldn't showcase everything that they do. I'd even say top 60 recruits are NBA caliber. So, that adds DSR. So, to answer your question, yes III recruited guards with NBA potential.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jul 13, 2020 13:19:34 GMT -5
III's style of play favored forwards and centers. Your traditional type of guard, not so much. Kinda like Phil Jackson's triangle. It was quite evident given who III put into the NBA: Green,Otto, Monroe, Hibbert, etc. DSR and Starks were good college guards. Same with Wright and Freeman.
However, did III ever recruit NBA potential/caliber guards during his tenure?
If anything, I think the system would prevent those caliber of players from even considering G-town, since they couldn't "showcase their skills". If you are a McDonald's All-American, you are NBA caliber. If you are at that high of a level, you can make it in the NBA and have the potential to do so. Those guys played here and couldn't showcase everything that they do. I'd even say top 60 recruits are NBA caliber. So, that adds DSR. So, to answer your question, yes III recruited guards with NBA potential. Not necessarily. Not every all-american is a one and done or NBA level. Some all-americans are busts. Some reach their ceiling at college. Anthony Perry was a high school all-american. Mark Tillmon was a high school all-american and good player for G-town. He wasn't NBA caliber.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,636
|
Post by DallasHoya on Jul 13, 2020 14:23:20 GMT -5
With Henry, the light bulb didn't really come on for him until his senior year and then he flourished. Was that the system's fault or credit? Or was it a player finally listening to what Coach had been drilling into him for 3 years? www.baltimoresun.com/sports/nba/bs-sp-henry-sims-nba-draft-0626-20120626-story.html"You hear stories about the player that's the first to get to the gym and the last to leave," said Georgetown coach John Thompson III. "Henry was not that guy for three years.
"And then all of a sudden going into senior year, he decided to commit himself to his craft and commit himself to basketball, and he saw the results."III's style of play favored forwards and centers. Your traditional type of guard, not so much. Kinda like Phil Jackson's triangle. It was quite evident given who III put into the NBA: Green,Otto, Monroe, Hibbert, etc. DSR and Starks were good college guards. Same with Wright and Freeman. However, did III ever recruit NBA potential/caliber guards during his tenure? If anything, I think the system would prevent those caliber of players from even considering G-town, since they couldn't "showcase their skills". I seem to remember a couple of pretty decent 2 guards that did alright in the Triangle offense. I think their numbers were 23 and 8.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jul 13, 2020 14:55:16 GMT -5
With Henry, the light bulb didn't really come on for him until his senior year and then he flourished. Was that the system's fault or credit? Or was it a player finally listening to what Coach had been drilling into him for 3 years? www.baltimoresun.com/sports/nba/bs-sp-henry-sims-nba-draft-0626-20120626-story.html"You hear stories about the player that's the first to get to the gym and the last to leave," said Georgetown coach John Thompson III. "Henry was not that guy for three years.
"And then all of a sudden going into senior year, he decided to commit himself to his craft and commit himself to basketball, and he saw the results."III's style of play favored forwards and centers. Your traditional type of guard, not so much. Kinda like Phil Jackson's triangle. It was quite evident given who III put into the NBA: Green,Otto, Monroe, Hibbert, etc. DSR and Starks were good college guards. Same with Wright and Freeman. However, did III ever recruit NBA potential/caliber guards during his tenure? If anything, I think the system would prevent those caliber of players from even considering G-town, since they couldn't "showcase their skills". I seem to remember a couple of pretty decent 2 guards that did alright in the Triangle offense. I think their numbers were 23 and 8. But they didn't have the ball-control,dominant PG's like you would see in more traditional offenses. Fisher, Paxon, Armstrong, weren't PG's in those offenses like you typically saw with Isiah or Chris Paul of those respective eras. And it didn't matter. That wasn't the emphasis. III's offense wasn't predicated on it either.If you were a top-flight guard with NBA aspirations, you would think twice playing with III when all you saw going to the NBA first round were Forwards and Centers. The argument by the pro-III supporters at the time was that the Princeton would provide great,sound fundamentals for players.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jul 13, 2020 15:40:41 GMT -5
I mentioned previously that I happen to know a guy who was a Wizards scout when Markel worked out for the team. He had said that the Gtown system definitely was a negative in terms of guards in the NBA. However, he also said the league liked how the big men operated in the system, especially in terms of passing. So, I can see the complaints of C Wright, Austin and Jason..but Henry, i find surprising,. He went from a guy nailed to the bench for more than two years , to playing two FULL NBA seasons (over 75 games each) and parts of two others. WIth his talent level, I do not see him having a better NBA career than that coming out of Duke or Kansas. Sims also has admitted in the past that he didn't really have his head in things fully at least until his junior year, and especially senior year. I mean, even in this podcast, he talked about how at one point Freeman and Wright pulled him aside and basically gave him a stern talking to. Given that Sims took time to find his footing, it's easy to envision that if he was at a different college or university with a looser program or a different group of guys, it might have been easy for a guy like that to fall through the cracks and never make the NBA at all. Considering the type of player Sims is/was, he had a pretty nice NBA career. If this was 1985, he probably would have stuck in the NBA a lot longer. Like Hibbert and Monroe, Sims to some extent was the victim of an evolution in the game whereby bigs aren't valued as highly in the NBA because of the change in play.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jul 13, 2020 15:43:56 GMT -5
If you are a McDonald's All-American, you are NBA caliber. If you are at that high of a level, you can make it in the NBA and have the potential to do so. Those guys played here and couldn't showcase everything that they do. I'd even say top 60 recruits are NBA caliber. So, that adds DSR. So, to answer your question, yes III recruited guards with NBA potential. Not necessarily. Not every all-american is a one and done or NBA level. Some all-americans are busts. Some reach their ceiling at college. Anthony Perry was a high school all-american. Mark Tillmon was a high school all-american and good player for G-town. He wasn't NBA caliber. One and done vs guys who can make the NBA is a very different argument. If you are a high level, top 60 talent, you can make the NBA. It's not unreasonable to say that. Wright and Freeman could've made the NBA. They had NBA potential (if the word caliber is what's throwing you off). I don't think that's deniable really. Are there busts? Of course. Does that mean they couldn't reasonably make the at that age? Absolutely not. The offense didn't help them, hence why III had no PG for a little while, hence part of the reason the program is where it is now. The program didn't do well with local guards, and now we haven't had one since. The Princeton worked for a little while. I'm shocked he was able to get good guards and keep them for as long as he did. But, that offense just isn't designed for sustained success at the high major level. Ewing's offense can be, so long as this defense improves.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jul 13, 2020 15:52:07 GMT -5
Not necessarily. Not every all-american is a one and done or NBA level. Some all-americans are busts. Some reach their ceiling at college. Anthony Perry was a high school all-american. Mark Tillmon was a high school all-american and good player for G-town. He wasn't NBA caliber. One and done vs guys who can make the NBA is a very different argument. If you are a high level, top 60 talent, you can make the NBA. It's not unreasonable to say that. Wright and Freeman could've made the NBA. They had NBA potential (if the word caliber is what's throwing you off). I don't think that's deniable really. Are there busts? Of course. Does that mean they couldn't reasonably make the at that age? Absolutely not. The offense didn't help them, hence why III had no PG for a little while, hence part of the reason the program is where it is now. The program didn't do well with local guards, and now we haven't had one since. The Princeton worked for a little while. I'm shocked he was able to get good guards and keep them for as long as he did. But, that offense just isn't designed for sustained success at the high major level. Ewing's offense can be, so long as this defense improves. I mean, by definition, the top 60 recruits aren't going to make the NBA, since I doubt 60 guys in each college class ever play in the NBA if you exclude the token appearances that guys make here and there. A lot of those guys do have potential, but reaching that potential is a lot harder. And let's face it - All Americans like Chris Wright who are short for the NBA are going to have a much harder time making it, even though they can be great high school and college players. On the Princeton offense, it's true that JT3 very much used it in the Green/Hibbert area, and in the Wright/Freeman era, but the system began changing at the end of the Wright/Freeman era, and by the time JT3 was fired, he really wasn't running anything closely resembling a strict Princeton system. As far as recruiting guards, JT3 was a better recruiter than people gave him credit for. He pretty consistently landed top talent until he was fired. The other issue is everyone always judges these teams by their NCAA results. The 2010 team was ranked 11 on KenPom and had a 3 seed, the 2011 team was ranked 31 and got a 6 seed, and the 2012 team was ranked 15 and had a 3 seed. Now, did the Princeton offense hold them back? Maybe. There's no way to know, of course, but the fact is those teams implemented the system well and won a ton of games. As fans, I think most of us would give a lot to get a 3 seed or a 6 seed at this point (or any seed for that matter).
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jul 13, 2020 16:22:05 GMT -5
Not necessarily. Not every all-american is a one and done or NBA level. Some all-americans are busts. Some reach their ceiling at college. Anthony Perry was a high school all-american. Mark Tillmon was a high school all-american and good player for G-town. He wasn't NBA caliber. One and done vs guys who can make the NBA is a very different argument. If you are a high level, top 60 talent, you can make the NBA. It's not unreasonable to say that. Wright and Freeman could've made the NBA. They had NBA potential (if the word caliber is what's throwing you off). I don't think that's deniable really. Are there busts? Of course. Does that mean they couldn't reasonably make the at that age? Absolutely not. The offense didn't help them, hence why III had no PG for a little while, hence part of the reason the program is where it is now. The program didn't do well with local guards, and now we haven't had one since. The Princeton worked for a little while. I'm shocked he was able to get good guards and keep them for as long as he did. But, that offense just isn't designed for sustained success at the high major level. Ewing's offense can be, so long as this defense improves. Wright and Freeman had health issues too at the end of their college career/beginning of NBA career. It is hard to say if they could have been late bloomers once making it into the league given their respective health issues. Judging by their college careers, they were good college players. Like Starks and DSR. NBA? No. III's offense worked fine before Wright,Monroe and Freeman arrived. Had better tournament success. Starks showed the most improvement of any guard in the III era in that same system. DSR thrived from day 1 in that same system. III's overall problem is that he never really found his groove as a coach at G-town. Never any consistency. Really, his first group was his best group that went to the Sweet Sixteen and Final Four. Otto's teams were solid, but III never really approximated his early success in the tournament. The rule changes also hurt, and III never could adjust.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Jul 13, 2020 16:54:18 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal here is. Henry explicitly said he wished they had gone to Maryland or Florida so they didn't have to do any classwork and they could have someone do the work for them. If that's the way he feels, that's his opinion, but that's not an opinion that's an indictment of how the program was run or the Princeton offense.
Bummed they didn't ask about the GUSA run.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jul 13, 2020 19:30:39 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal here is. Henry explicitly said he wished they had gone to Maryland or Florida so they didn't have to do any classwork and they could have someone do the work for them. If that's the way he feels, that's his opinion, but that's not an opinion that's an indictment of how the program was run or the Princeton offense. Bummed they didn't ask about the GUSA run. I did not interpret his comments in that way. My interpretation was that he said he wished they had gone to Florida and Maryland for basketball reasons - i.e., playing in a different system. I believe it was Clark (but maybe Henry) who said they had to work for every grade, unlike other places where people take tests for you. But, I did not interpret him as saying he wish he had done that.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jul 13, 2020 20:00:09 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal here is. Henry explicitly said he wished they had gone to Maryland or Florida so they didn't have to do any classwork and they could have someone do the work for them. If that's the way he feels, that's his opinion, but that's not an opinion that's an indictment of how the program was run or the Princeton offense. Bummed they didn't ask about the GUSA run. I did not interpret his comments in that way. My interpretation was that he said he wished they had gone to Florida and Maryland for basketball reasons - i.e., playing in a different system. I believe it was Clark (but maybe Henry) who said they had to work for every grade, unlike other places where people take tests for you. But, I did not interpret him as saying he wish he had done that. They were talking basketball reasons. And were joking about the school, classes part. They were emphasizing the stress of really holding to the title "student-athlete". From the interview, they didn't care much for the system. They were joking in retrospect, but it kinda made sense the way they explained it. They gave an example as to where Monroe made 5 straight buckets and then there was a timeout. In the huddle, a play was designed to where they had to do all this complicated,spin move stuff just to get the ball to Monroe. lol Somebody in the huddle just said, just give Moose the *bleeping* ball. lol To their credit,I think it was Freeman who said the Wizards ran the Princeton offense and they flourished offensively. Interesting how they talked about how Summers was incredible in high school and was serious about getting the ball during the Hoya days. All he had to do was give you a look to let you know that he wants the ball.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,358
|
Post by prhoya on Jul 13, 2020 23:27:05 GMT -5
I did not interpret his comments in that way. My interpretation was that he said he wished they had gone to Florida and Maryland for basketball reasons - i.e., playing in a different system. I believe it was Clark (but maybe Henry) who said they had to work for every grade, unlike other places where people take tests for you. But, I did not interpret him as saying he wish he had done that. They were talking basketball reasons. And were joking about the school, classes part. They were emphasizing the stress of really holding to the title "student-athlete". From the interview, they didn't care much for the system. They were joking in retrospect, but it kinda made sense the way they explained it. They gave an example as to where Monroe made 5 straight buckets and then there was a timeout. In the huddle, a play was designed to where they had to do all this complicated, spin move stuff just to get the ball to Monroe. lol Somebody in the huddle just said, just give Moose the *bleeping* ball. lol The unnecessary spin move at the top of the key to start the offense... one of JT3's signatures! It made the Xavier players laugh.
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Jul 14, 2020 0:39:21 GMT -5
One and done vs guys who can make the NBA is a very different argument. If you are a high level, top 60 talent, you can make the NBA. It's not unreasonable to say that. Wright and Freeman could've made the NBA. They had NBA potential (if the word caliber is what's throwing you off). I don't think that's deniable really. Are there busts? Of course. Does that mean they couldn't reasonably make the at that age? Absolutely not. The offense didn't help them, hence why III had no PG for a little while, hence part of the reason the program is where it is now. The program didn't do well with local guards, and now we haven't had one since. The Princeton worked for a little while. I'm shocked he was able to get good guards and keep them for as long as he did. But, that offense just isn't designed for sustained success at the high major level. Ewing's offense can be, so long as this defense improves. Wright and Freeman had health issues too at the end of their college career/beginning of NBA career. It is hard to say if they could have been late bloomers once making it into the league given their respective health issues. Judging by their college careers, they were good college players. Like Starks and DSR. NBA? No. III's offense worked fine before Wright,Monroe and Freeman arrived. Had better tournament success. Starks showed the most improvement of any guard in the III era in that same system. DSR thrived from day 1 in that same system. III's overall problem is that he never really found his groove as a coach at G-town. Never any consistency. Really, his first group was his best group that went to the Sweet Sixteen and Final Four. Otto's teams were solid, but III never really approximated his early success in the tournament. The rule changes also hurt, and III never could adjust. This crippled JT3' offense. The game became much more of guards game emphasizing PG who could come off PnR and get in the lane and draw contact. This Hurt JT3's local recruiting efforts. JT3 also made some poor recruiting evaluations. Not taking Trimble who reportedly wanted to go to Georgetown. Taking Campbell (who was better suited off the ball) to play the point, and the colossal disaster was not locking in Josh Hart and watching him win POY & a NATI for your rival....
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jul 14, 2020 0:43:55 GMT -5
They were talking basketball reasons. And were joking about the school, classes part. They were emphasizing the stress of really holding to the title "student-athlete". From the interview, they didn't care much for the system. They were joking in retrospect, but it kinda made sense the way they explained it. They gave an example as to where Monroe made 5 straight buckets and then there was a timeout. In the huddle, a play was designed to where they had to do all this complicated, spin move stuff just to get the ball to Monroe. lol Somebody in the huddle just said, just give Moose the *bleeping* ball. lol The unnecessary spin move at the top of the key to start the offense... one of JT3's signatures! It made the Xavier players laugh. If someone mentions DSR, the first thing I think of is that spin move. That spin move gives me nightmares, just based off of what we last saw. Don't get me started on how many times Mulmore turned it over because of that spin move... To be fair, when we were doing well, I never thought of that spin move as anything, so there's that, too.
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,352
|
Post by daveg023 on Jul 14, 2020 6:44:00 GMT -5
Wright and Freeman had health issues too at the end of their college career/beginning of NBA career. It is hard to say if they could have been late bloomers once making it into the league given their respective health issues. Judging by their college careers, they were good college players. Like Starks and DSR. NBA? No. III's offense worked fine before Wright,Monroe and Freeman arrived. Had better tournament success. Starks showed the most improvement of any guard in the III era in that same system. DSR thrived from day 1 in that same system. III's overall problem is that he never really found his groove as a coach at G-town. Never any consistency. Really, his first group was his best group that went to the Sweet Sixteen and Final Four. Otto's teams were solid, but III never really approximated his early success in the tournament. The rule changes also hurt, and III never could adjust. This crippled JT3' offense. The game became much more of guards game emphasizing PG who could come off PnR and get in the lane and draw contact. This Hurt JT3's local recruiting efforts. JT3 also made some poor recruiting evaluations. Not taking Trimble who reportedly wanted to go to Georgetown. Taking Campbell (who was better suited off the ball) to play the point, and the colossal disaster was not locking in Josh Hart and watching him win POY & a NATI for your rival.... The rule changes and the ability or inability to adapt singlehandedly changed the course of history in the new Big East. Simply put, we failed to adapt and we have become a conference bottom feeder by any objective measure, while Jay Wright and Villanova used thr changes to their advantage and now have won 5 of 6 conference titles and 2 National Championships to boot.
|
|
|
Post by wponds on Jul 14, 2020 9:15:34 GMT -5
Just finished the episode. Aside from what's already been discussed here, I'm excited that they really seem committed (at least for now) to having a team in next year's TBT. I really looked up to most of these guys growing up, so seeing them together again would really be something
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jul 14, 2020 10:06:07 GMT -5
This crippled JT3' offense. The game became much more of guards game emphasizing PG who could come off PnR and get in the lane and draw contact. This Hurt JT3's local recruiting efforts. JT3 also made some poor recruiting evaluations. Not taking Trimble who reportedly wanted to go to Georgetown. Taking Campbell (who was better suited off the ball) to play the point, and the colossal disaster was not locking in Josh Hart and watching him win POY & a NATI for your rival.... The rule changes and the ability or inability to adapt singlehandedly changed the course of history in the new Big East. Simply put, we failed to adapt and we have become a conference bottom feeder by any objective measure, while Jay Wright and Villanova used thr changes to their advantage and now have won 5 of 6 conference titles and 2 National Championships to boot. The rules favored Jay Wright's style of play. The small ball, multiple guard offense. Multiple guys who could handle the rock on the court. He was that way since the days of Randy Foye, Allan Ray, Lowry, etc. III didn't play that way, and he was phased out. Defensively, III never recovered from the changes.
|
|