|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Jan 27, 2021 11:32:20 GMT -5
If that’s fictional lineup would happen then you would be taking away what Blair does best which is being a spot up shooter and making him do what he’s worse about which is being a distributor The shooting guard and small forward positions in the college game have pretty much merged into the same position. Players who are that 6'1" - 6'6", with good mobility, are pretty much all the same now and should really just be considered "wing" players. I would think a majority of colleges these days are playing 3 players at the same time who are all 6'6" and under. It works fine if you have a center and power forward who are focused and capable rebounders, and the other smaller players understand that they need to be part of good team rebounding scheme and compete for all of the longer rebounds. Playing Blair, Aminu and either Dante or Tyler together should not be an issue, especially with Aminu looking to be physically strong enough to compete with taller/stronger players. Personally I don't see Blair coming back next season. I think he will take his chances playing internationally and start earning a living with his basketball skills. I think the real conversation is if Carey returns for his last year of eligibility at Georgetown or if the 2/3 spot is really just occupied mostly by Aminu and Riley. I think both of those guys are going to be really good players in their Hoya careers, but having someone with some college experience would help. Even though it might hurt in the short run, I hope all the seniors move on. We need a reboot of the talent level and the young kids need the minutes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 12:55:11 GMT -5
You have 13 for practices, injuries, sickness and development. Ideally 8 to 9 guys get minutes and the other 4 or 5 are there for development in future years. I would take a four star sophomore with a year of practice in a system versus most five stars any day. It's why upsets happen and why college basketball is unique. Frankly I would recruit the guys without NBA measurables so you get three to four years out of them. T. Williams was a good example. Dug McDaniel is another. Mac & Akinjo actually fit that mold I am just not sure they realize it. If I'm the coach, all of my kids get time. That's how I'm developing them. If I have 13 players who are decent high school ballers, all of them are going to play in the games. I might have some who play a few minutes while others play 20 plus minutes. My stars would play the most minutes obviously. Last night Oklahoma played 10 kids against Texas and won. Alabama played 10 and defeated Kentucky UNC played 10 and defeated Pitt. Duke suited up 10 and they beat Georgia Tech There's no hard rule that says you have to play 8 or 9 kids a night to be successful like you guys are trying to imply. I would love to see win/loss stats on when 10 or more kids play for a team against teams that suit up 9 or less players.
|
|
|
Post by bornhoya on Jan 27, 2021 12:59:11 GMT -5
You have 13 for practices, injuries, sickness and development. Ideally 8 to 9 guys get minutes and the other 4 or 5 are there for development in future years. I would take a four star sophomore with a year of practice in a system versus most five stars any day. It's why upsets happen and why college basketball is unique. Frankly I would recruit the guys without NBA measurables so you get three to four years out of them. T. Williams was a good example. Dug McDaniel is another. Mac & Akinjo actually fit that mold I am just not sure they realize it. If I'm the coach, all of my kids get time. That's how I'm developing them. If I have 13 players who are decent high school ballers, all of them are going to play in the games. I might have some who play a few minutes while others play 20 plus minutes. My stars would play the most minutes obviously. Last night Oklahoma played 10 kids against Texas and won. Alabama played 10 and defeated Kentucky UNC played 10 and defeated Pitt. Duke suited up 10 and they beat Georgia Tech There's no hard rule that says you have to play 8 or 9 kids a night to be successful like you guys are trying to imply. I would love to see win/loss stats on when 10 or more kids play for a team against teams that suit up 9 or less players. 10 is probably the most but if your playing 13 your going to have a drop off in talent from 10 to 11
|
|
|
Post by bornhoya on Jan 27, 2021 13:00:18 GMT -5
The shooting guard and small forward positions in the college game have pretty much merged into the same position. Players who are that 6'1" - 6'6", with good mobility, are pretty much all the same now and should really just be considered "wing" players. I would think a majority of colleges these days are playing 3 players at the same time who are all 6'6" and under. It works fine if you have a center and power forward who are focused and capable rebounders, and the other smaller players understand that they need to be part of good team rebounding scheme and compete for all of the longer rebounds. Playing Blair, Aminu and either Dante or Tyler together should not be an issue, especially with Aminu looking to be physically strong enough to compete with taller/stronger players. Personally I don't see Blair coming back next season. I think he will take his chances playing internationally and start earning a living with his basketball skills. I think the real conversation is if Carey returns for his last year of eligibility at Georgetown or if the 2/3 spot is really just occupied mostly by Aminu and Riley. I think both of those guys are going to be really good players in their Hoya careers, but having someone with some college experience would help. Even though it might hurt in the short run, I hope all the seniors move on. We need a reboot of the talent level and the young kids need the minutes. I want to win and if they can help us win I’m all for them staying
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 27, 2021 13:02:08 GMT -5
Having 13 scholarships doesn't mean we need to play 13 guys every game Why not? Why do you have them on the team? You might well just recruit 6 or 7 based on you all's logic. Practice. Yes I'm talking about practice. Having 13 guys means you can run 5 on 5 with subs. Including walkons, you could fill three teams. Some guys should redshirt, some guys should play very sparingly for developmental purposes, etc. Also, insurance for injuries. You still have enough guys to play if a couple guys get hurt. Playing all 13 in a game usually doesn't work. Our Hoyas and Texas were both better with smaller rotations. Jay Wright never plays a full 13. He has 9 guys who have played this year. That model usually works. Those guys can develop chemistry with each other and it's always better to have a group of guys all on the same page, then throwing out 13 guys who aren't on the same page.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 27, 2021 13:13:11 GMT -5
You have 13 for practices, injuries, sickness and development. Ideally 8 to 9 guys get minutes and the other 4 or 5 are there for development in future years. I would take a four star sophomore with a year of practice in a system versus most five stars any day. It's why upsets happen and why college basketball is unique. Frankly I would recruit the guys without NBA measurables so you get three to four years out of them. T. Williams was a good example. Dug McDaniel is another. Mac & Akinjo actually fit that mold I am just not sure they realize it. If I'm the coach, all of my kids get time. That's how I'm developing them. If I have 13 players who are decent high school ballers, all of them are going to play in the games. I might have some who play a few minutes while others play 20 plus minutes. My stars would play the most minutes obviously. Last night Oklahoma played 10 kids against Texas and won. Alabama played 10 and defeated Kentucky UNC played 10 and defeated Pitt. Duke suited up 10 and they beat Georgia Tech There's no hard rule that says you have to play 8 or 9 kids a night to be successful like you guys are trying to imply. I would love to see win/loss stats on when 10 or more kids play for a team against teams that suit up 9 or less players. Duke had three guys play 3 or less minutes. The box score for Oklahoma says one kid played zero minutes, so he probably played under 30 seconds. UNC played one player for one minute. Alabama ha two kids play two minutes or less. If this is what you mean by playing all guys, I don't think anyone is against that. A quick rest or for foul trouble, or just to try something different. 10 is usually the cap, since we all saw how our 11 man lineup worked last year. But yes, while there is no direct rule, college basketball teams are usually better off shrinking their rotation. Not many coaches consistently run out 10+ guys. Also, your stat will have significant outliers of the walkons getting PT in a blowout for the winning team. It would be interesting to see though, if someone could take those outliers (could work in the other direction also) out.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,206
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jan 27, 2021 13:13:25 GMT -5
You have 13 for practices, injuries, sickness and development. Ideally 8 to 9 guys get minutes and the other 4 or 5 are there for development in future years. I would take a four star sophomore with a year of practice in a system versus most five stars any day. It's why upsets happen and why college basketball is unique. Frankly I would recruit the guys without NBA measurables so you get three to four years out of them. T. Williams was a good example. Dug McDaniel is another. Mac & Akinjo actually fit that mold I am just not sure they realize it. If I'm the coach, all of my kids get time. That's how I'm developing them. If I have 13 players who are decent high school ballers, all of them are going to play in the games. I might have some who play a few minutes while others play 20 plus minutes. My stars would play the most minutes obviously. This will be a disaster and guarantee Ewing’s departure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 13:28:00 GMT -5
If I'm the coach, all of my kids get time. That's how I'm developing them. If I have 13 players who are decent high school ballers, all of them are going to play in the games. I might have some who play a few minutes while others play 20 plus minutes. My stars would play the most minutes obviously. Last night Oklahoma played 10 kids against Texas and won. Alabama played 10 and defeated Kentucky UNC played 10 and defeated Pitt. Duke suited up 10 and they beat Georgia Tech There's no hard rule that says you have to play 8 or 9 kids a night to be successful like you guys are trying to imply. I would love to see win/loss stats on when 10 or more kids play for a team against teams that suit up 9 or less players. Duke had three guys play 3 or less minutes. The box score for Oklahoma says one kid played zero minutes, so he probably played under 30 seconds. UNC played one player for one minute. Alabama ha two kids play two minutes or less. If this is what you mean by playing all guys, I don't think anyone is against that. A quick rest or for foul trouble, or just to try something different. 10 is usually the cap, since we all saw how our 11 man lineup worked last year. But yes, while there is no direct rule, college basketball teams are usually better off shrinking their rotation. Not many coaches consistently run out 10+ guys. Also, your stat will have significant outliers of the walkons getting PT in a blowout for the winning team. It would be interesting to see though, if someone could take those outliers (could work in the other direction also) out. Well I did say a few of the kids will get a few minutes. But of all the guys that want to play 9 or less kids a night, you make the most sense. But to see if you all's theory hold true, just go look at some back games where teams that played 10 kids or more vs teams that played 9 kids or less and see what the outcome was. I didn't do it yet but would love to know what you find. Please don't say well some kids play 30 mins or whatever on teams that played 10 kids. To me that doesn't matter. I just want to know how many wins do teams that play 10 kids have against teams that play 9 or less.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 13:28:57 GMT -5
If I'm the coach, all of my kids get time. That's how I'm developing them. If I have 13 players who are decent high school ballers, all of them are going to play in the games. I might have some who play a few minutes while others play 20 plus minutes. My stars would play the most minutes obviously. This will be a disaster and guarantee Ewing’s departure. Well this is what you want anyways so what do you care? I mean really.
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,816
|
Post by hoyazeke on Jan 27, 2021 17:36:26 GMT -5
Even though it might hurt in the short run, I hope all the seniors move on. We need a reboot of the talent level and the young kids need the minutes. I want to win and if they can help us win I’m all for them staying I want to win also but these 2 SRs would only stunt the growth of the underclassmen. Juggy would demand the ball even though he would be the worse option to start offense or do anything off the dribble. Morko reminds of the practice assassin. He probably shoots 80% in practice making every teammate think he is option #1. Then game time comes and he is missing in action. At least when it comes to scoring.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,316
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 27, 2021 18:00:35 GMT -5
I want to win and if they can help us win I’m all for them staying I want to win also but these 2 SRs would only stunt the growth of the underclassmen. Juggy would demand the ball even though he would be the worse option to start offense or do anything off the dribble. Morko reminds of the practice assassin. He probably shoots 80% in practice making every teammate think he is option #1. Then game time comes and he is missing in action. At least when it comes to scoring. As of now, Pickett is the best option at the 4 for next year. Sad, but true. We're limited by the roster options, esp. the 4 centers who cannot play PF, the lack of play of the current frosh forwards (Sibley and CH) and the question mark that is Billingsley. Of course, rosters under Pat change quite a bit, so we may be in for a surprise or two.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,206
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jan 27, 2021 19:50:58 GMT -5
This will be a disaster and guarantee Ewing’s departure. Well this is what you want anyways so what do you care? I mean really. I do not want a disaster. But, since Ewing pretty much guarantees a disaster, I do want him gone. I’d love to see the miracle where he becomes a good coach and we are no longer a disaster but counting on miracles is not a good policy.
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,816
|
Post by hoyazeke on Jan 27, 2021 20:15:19 GMT -5
I want to win also but these 2 SRs would only stunt the growth of the underclassmen. Juggy would demand the ball even though he would be the worse option to start offense or do anything off the dribble. Morko reminds of the practice assassin. He probably shoots 80% in practice making every teammate think he is option #1. Then game time comes and he is missing in action. At least when it comes to scoring. As of now, Pickett is the best option at the 4 for next year. Sad, but true. We're limited by the roster options, esp. the 4 centers who cannot play PF, the lack of play of the current frosh forwards (Sibley and CH) and the question mark that is Billingsley. Of course, rosters under Pat change quite a bit, so we may be in for a surprise or two. I personally would rather Ewing throw Sibley and/or Billingsley to the wolves. Hell I think Sibley should be getting more minutes now. There is no saving this season so let's get these puppies as much PT as possible. I think with a year of S&C Sibley will be able to give us at a minimum what Morko is giving us now. He won't have Morko's ceiling but he can give us at least what he's giving now....
|
|
hoyaguy
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,853
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyaguy on Jan 27, 2021 20:46:43 GMT -5
It is so important for PE to play the freshmen a lot more than he has. Playing Morko and Blair nearly 40 minutes every game is hurting them, the team, and the future since the coaches have to fully understand what we have rn and don't have for next year. For example, if Sibley played more and showed well then ok, start gravitating towards another G for '21 or a grad transfer to bridge that, or if he is not great and they don't have confidence in Billingsley or even Mutombo to play at the 4 then get another PF from '21 or grad transfer to bridge the gap. (Getting another player under the assumption we will have a spot somehow which seems to be the case with them still talking to players). I think Beard should run with Berger possibly due to issues some people have with him being a Combo and Berger having played PG in high school to make it work better but I think Beard will be solid either way.
As far as line ups (with no Carey or super seniors) on day 1 I see: 1. Dante 2. Riley (Or Berger depending on how well Riley can shoot from outside and changes to Berger's defensive abilities) 3. Mohammed 4. Sibley 5. Wahab Main subs: Beard, Berger, Mutumbo at 5 or 4 (who knows PE might try it since it's mutombo), and maybe Clark if Billingsley does have motivation issues like some people said in his thread
|
|
|
Post by bornhoya on Jan 28, 2021 0:35:56 GMT -5
It is so important for PE to play the freshmen a lot more than he has. Playing Morko and Blair nearly 40 minutes every game is hurting them, the team, and the future since the coaches have to fully understand what we have rn and don't have for next year. For example, if Sibley played more and showed well then ok, start gravitating towards another G for '21 or a grad transfer to bridge that, or if he is not great and they don't have confidence in Billingsley or even Mutombo to play at the 4 then get another PF from '21 or grad transfer to bridge the gap. (Getting another player under the assumption we will have a spot somehow which seems to be the case with them still talking to players). I think Beard should run with Berger possibly due to issues some people have with him being a Combo and Berger having played PG in high school to make it work better but I think Beard will be solid either way. As far as line ups (with no Carey or super seniors) on day 1 I see: 1. Dante 2. Riley (Or Berger depending on how well Riley can shoot from outside and changes to Berger's defensive abilities) 3. Mohammed 4. Sibley 5. Wahab Main subs: Beard, Berger, Mutumbo at 5 or 4 (who knows PE might try it since it's mutombo), and maybe Clark if Billingsley does have motivation issues like some people said in his thread And that team is not going to win
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,403
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jan 28, 2021 9:05:20 GMT -5
It is so important for PE to play the freshmen a lot more than he has. Playing Morko and Blair nearly 40 minutes every game is hurting them, the team, and the future since the coaches have to fully understand what we have rn and don't have for next year. For example, if Sibley played more and showed well then ok, start gravitating towards another G for '21 or a grad transfer to bridge that, or if he is not great and they don't have confidence in Billingsley or even Mutombo to play at the 4 then get another PF from '21 or grad transfer to bridge the gap. (Getting another player under the assumption we will have a spot somehow which seems to be the case with them still talking to players). I think Beard should run with Berger possibly due to issues some people have with him being a Combo and Berger having played PG in high school to make it work better but I think Beard will be solid either way. As far as line ups (with no Carey or super seniors) on day 1 I see: 1. Dante 2. Riley (Or Berger depending on how well Riley can shoot from outside and changes to Berger's defensive abilities) 3. Mohammed 4. Sibley 5. Wahab Main subs: Beard, Berger, Mutumbo at 5 or 4 (who knows PE might try it since it's mutombo), and maybe Clark if Billingsley does have motivation issues like some people said in his thread And that team is not going to win I'd agree with this assessment - my take is Ewing's going to need to find an experienced 4, at the very least, and probably an experienced 1 and 2, if he can. Dante Harris just isn't good enough to be a starting PG on a winning Big East team, from everything I've seen this year. He's had 1 good game out of 11. I'd think Beard would be ahead of Dante the moment he arrives at Georgetown, but then we're rolling with a frosh starting PG again, which typically isn't a formula for success. It would be helpful to find a better version of Jalen Harris in the offseason - something like the Mooney kid that transferred to Texas Tech and started on their Final Four team. As for the 4, I really like Sibley and he's shown flashes, but not sure he'll be ready for starter's minutes next season. If Sibley can't get more playing time on this year's team, it's hard to imagine him as a starter next season on a team that has expectations for success. At the 2, I'm not convinced that Riley is an instant starter on a good team. He's athletic and has a ton of potential, but seems pretty raw and we probably need some more pure shooters in the lineup.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 28, 2021 11:14:42 GMT -5
It is so important for PE to play the freshmen a lot more than he has. Playing Morko and Blair nearly 40 minutes every game is hurting them, the team, and the future since the coaches have to fully understand what we have rn and don't have for next year. For example, if Sibley played more and showed well then ok, start gravitating towards another G for '21 or a grad transfer to bridge that, or if he is not great and they don't have confidence in Billingsley or even Mutombo to play at the 4 then get another PF from '21 or grad transfer to bridge the gap. (Getting another player under the assumption we will have a spot somehow which seems to be the case with them still talking to players). I think Beard should run with Berger possibly due to issues some people have with him being a Combo and Berger having played PG in high school to make it work better but I think Beard will be solid either way. As far as line ups (with no Carey or super seniors) on day 1 I see: 1. Dante 2. Riley (Or Berger depending on how well Riley can shoot from outside and changes to Berger's defensive abilities) 3. Mohammed 4. Sibley 5. Wahab Main subs: Beard, Berger, Mutumbo at 5 or 4 (who knows PE might try it since it's mutombo), and maybe Clark if Billingsley does have motivation issues like some people said in his thread And that team is not going to win If the defensive scheme is fixed, that team will win
|
|
|
Post by bornhoya on Jan 28, 2021 13:16:25 GMT -5
And that team is not going to win If the defensive scheme is fixed, that team will win The defense might be better but we would be asking Mohammed to put up atleast 17 a game with that lineup
|
|
hoyaguy
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,853
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyaguy on Jan 28, 2021 13:38:24 GMT -5
And that team is not going to win I'd agree with this assessment - my take is Ewing's going to need to find an experienced 4, at the very least, and probably an experienced 1 and 2, if he can. Dante Harris just isn't good enough to be a starting PG on a winning Big East team, from everything I've seen this year. He's had 1 good game out of 11. I'd think Beard would be ahead of Dante the moment he arrives at Georgetown, but then we're rolling with a frosh starting PG again, which typically isn't a formula for success. It would be helpful to find a better version of Jalen Harris in the offseason - something like the Mooney kid that transferred to Texas Tech and started on their Final Four team. As for the 4, I really like Sibley and he's shown flashes, but not sure he'll be ready for starter's minutes next season. If Sibley can't get more playing time on this year's team, it's hard to imagine him as a starter next season on a team that has expectations for success. At the 2, I'm not convinced that Riley is an instant starter on a good team. He's athletic and has a ton of potential, but seems pretty raw and we probably need some more pure shooters in the lineup. I never said that it would win, this is just where things stand until something changes, which I think it will. Since I do not think we will have open spots to fill all of those spots, which order would people want grad transfers in those spots. Personally I would take a PF first, then PG, and SG.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 28, 2021 14:08:14 GMT -5
If the defensive scheme is fixed, that team will win The defense might be better but we would be asking Mohammed to put up atleast 17 a game with that lineup I think that's fair. But if we can win games in the 60's and 70's that team has much higher odds of being good than if we are trying to outscore everyone. I think guys like Beard, Riley and Q can step up to give this team a good chance of competing. So long as the defense is fixed. If it isn't, next years team will struggle.
|
|