|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 7, 2021 13:34:54 GMT -5
I think Boknight might be gone after this year. Especially if UCONN makes a deep run in the NCAA tournament. Well yeah that's why I said guys like Bouknight. Like elite players at the 2/3 positions. I think he's a top 10 pick and he should leave. But out of curiosity, I don't think I've seen you spell an opposing player's name right all season. Why is this? Is it like your thing or just unintentional or what? I'm more curious than anything else. Just don't like Bojkknight
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,588
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 7, 2021 14:35:45 GMT -5
I don’t get all the angst about Ewing using the term selfish. It’s very clear what he means is that ball (and player) movement was lacking and seems to be more of a proxy for the guys not committing to running the offense rather than a personal pejorative. It’s also accurate (at least it certainly was yesterday).
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,352
|
Post by prhoya on Mar 7, 2021 14:45:08 GMT -5
I don’t get all the angst about Ewing using the term selfish. It’s very clear what he means is that ball (and player) movement was lacking and seems to be more of a proxy for the guys not committing to running the offense rather than a personal pejorative. It’s also accurate (at least it certainly was yesterday). Disagree. UCon had a great defensive scheme to play us. Our players were moving, but the Huskies were cutting our passing angles, were in our faces on 3s, and they had control of the post with one player. There was no need to throw our players under the bus for selfishness “to a man”.
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,351
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 7, 2021 14:49:06 GMT -5
I don’t get all the angst about Ewing using the term selfish. It’s very clear what he means is that ball (and player) movement was lacking and seems to be more of a proxy for the guys not committing to running the offense rather than a personal pejorative. It’s also accurate (at least it certainly was yesterday). Disagree. UCon had a great defensive scheme to play us. Our players were moving, but the Huskies were cutting our passing angles, were in our faces on 3s, and they had control of the post with one player. There was no need to throw our players under the bus for selfishness “to a man”. Honestly our offense was not the issue. You can’t give up 50 points in a half and expect to be competitive. Sure failing to score prevents you from getting in your base defense and/or TOs lead to hoops on the other hand, but really UConn did most of their damage in the half court. They shot as well as they have all year, some was luck and some was bad D. The 3s I didn’t feel as bad about as many were contrasted, but the dunks, layups, offensive rebounds, and ineffective press were maddening.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 7, 2021 15:00:26 GMT -5
Disagree. UCon had a great defensive scheme to play us. Our players were moving, but the Huskies were cutting our passing angles, were in our faces on 3s, and they had control of the post with one player. There was no need to throw our players under the bus for selfishness “to a man”. Honestly our offense was not the issue. You can’t give up 50 points in a half and expect to be competitive. Sure failing to score prevents you from getting in your base defense and/or TOs lead to hoops on the other hand, but really UConn did most of their damage in the half court. They shot as well as they have all year, some was luck and some was bad D. The 3s I didn’t feel as bad about as many were contrasted, but the dunks, layups, offensive rebounds, and ineffective press were maddening. If UCONN shots 43% from 3 they are a final four team. If Villanova shoot 2-27 from 3 they will stink. It happens.
|
|
|
Post by bigelephant on Mar 7, 2021 16:38:27 GMT -5
The best thing is to fogetaboutdit and look to the next game
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,588
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 7, 2021 16:39:05 GMT -5
I don’t get all the angst about Ewing using the term selfish. It’s very clear what he means is that ball (and player) movement was lacking and seems to be more of a proxy for the guys not committing to running the offense rather than a personal pejorative. It’s also accurate (at least it certainly was yesterday). Disagree. UCon had a great defensive scheme to play us. Our players were moving, but the Huskies were cutting our passing angles, were in our faces on 3s, and they had control of the post with one player. There was no need to throw our players under the bus for selfishness “to a man”. One pass and little to no offensive movement for most of the first half. I know you've lumped Ewing into your hate for all things Thompson, but I disagree on this. I also don't see it as "throwing the team under the bus". Sure, UConn defended well, but in the face of it the team wilted and gave up on the offense.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,352
|
Post by prhoya on Mar 7, 2021 17:04:30 GMT -5
Disagree. UCon had a great defensive scheme to play us. Our players were moving, but the Huskies were cutting our passing angles, were in our faces on 3s, and they had control of the post with one player. There was no need to throw our players under the bus for selfishness “to a man”. One pass and little to no offensive movement for most of the first half. I know you've lumped Ewing into your hate for all things Thompson, but I disagree on this. I also don't see it as "throwing the team under the bus". Sure, UConn defended well, but in the face of it the team wilted and gave up on the offense. So drama of you. I personally like Pat. No, my position regarding him as a coach is simple and I have expressed it several times. And I know you know it because we have discussed here. I want the program to succeed now whether the coach’s last name is Thompson, Ewing or Pérez. We’ll agree to disagree. It’s not the first time he’s thrown his players under the bus after a loss.
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,508
|
Post by bostonfan on Mar 8, 2021 8:07:33 GMT -5
Bad loss to UConn!!!! UConn is a good team that seems to be peaking at the right time, but it was disappointing that this was not a competitive game. Not only was the score not close (it was not as close as the 16 point final difference), but it seemed like the Hoyas were not ready to compete at the outset of the game, and just did not play with enough focus and intensity to have a chance against a talented UConn team. This group of Hoyas have had issues this year where they get off to really slow starts with sloppy turnovers and a passive mindset, like they are slowly trying to work themselves into the game. They are not a talented enough team to be competitive if they are not aggressive and trying to impose their will right from the tap.
No doubt that UConn shot the ball really well, but the Hoyas just made it too easy for them to run their sets and get the shots they wanted. Once the Huskies had the feeling that Georgetown could not slow them down, they played with supreme confidence and it was not a contest. As distressing as the score was, the fact that the Hoyas had so little push back in this game was a major concern. Sure the Hoyas scored more points in the second half but the entire second half was garbage time and the game was decided. At some point the players need to take some personal pride and decide they are not going to be "punked" and need to start playing with some passion and physicality. The vast majority of the guys that play major minutes seemed to just sit back and take the beating. I am not a fan of the cheap shot by Bile on Bouknight (that is a dirty play), but I can understand his mindset that he was sick of UConn just making them look bad. Both Bile and Dante seemed to play with a little more passion in the second half, but it was too little/too late. This group of Hoyas don't have guys that play with swagger or and edge, and it is something they really need to develop as a program. I realize it is hard to play that way after years of disappointing results, but they need a few guys to step up and play with more pride in themselves and the program. Hoping a few freshman next year have that mentality.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 8, 2021 10:42:29 GMT -5
We shot just as high over our 3P% season average as they did over theirs. We shot a higher % in the game than than they did yet you would think from reading here they had a once in a lifetime performance and we had a bad game.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 8, 2021 10:54:42 GMT -5
We shot just as high over our 3P% season average as they did over theirs. We shot a higher % in the game than than they did yet you would think from reading here they had a once in a lifetime performance and we had a bad game. That was basically when the game was over when Blair was racking up garbage stats. Blair is usually the culprit who lowers our team 3pt% but he actually was 80% from 3 that game.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 8, 2021 13:19:46 GMT -5
I don’t get all the angst about Ewing using the term selfish. It’s very clear what he means is that ball (and player) movement was lacking and seems to be more of a proxy for the guys not committing to running the offense rather than a personal pejorative. It’s also accurate (at least it certainly was yesterday). Here is my problem with it. Ewing is really distracting from the problem. Our defense gave up 98 points, 51 in the first half. I don't care how selfless you are, you should not have to expect your offense to score 50+ points a half to win a game. I get it. The offense wasn't great either, but really the offense becomes moot when you allow the opposing team to score so much. I know Ewing said in the post-game comments that the defense was bad too, so he isn't ignoring it, but if I was the coach, I wouldn't necessary focus on the offense when you give up nearly 100 points. Ewing's commentary just rubs me the wrong way. I would almost rather he say nothing than make comments that continually seem to focus the problems on individual guys rather than himself.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 8, 2021 13:22:17 GMT -5
Does that one game undo 9 positive defensive performances? No, but I do think it makes you wonder if some of our defense has simply been fueled by playing a lot of our games in McDonough with teams not being able to shoot 3s well there. That's reductive and unfair to the legitimate strides we've seen but after getting lit up away from home, it has to be on the table. That was also the first time in a while we simply got beat in transition, which had been a problem the past few years but not one we'd seen this year. This echoes what I have been saying. In some of our "good" defensive performances, guys on the opposing team have gotten multiple wide open shots and missed. Keep in mind, 9 games is also a small sample. Given the 3 years before this season, and the pre-COVID break defense, I am not ready to say our defense has gotten better yet as a general matter. And, given that there really haven't been any scheme changes, I don't see a reason why it would get better.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 742
|
Post by rhw485 on Mar 8, 2021 14:01:16 GMT -5
Does that one game undo 9 positive defensive performances? No, but I do think it makes you wonder if some of our defense has simply been fueled by playing a lot of our games in McDonough with teams not being able to shoot 3s well there. That's reductive and unfair to the legitimate strides we've seen but after getting lit up away from home, it has to be on the table. That was also the first time in a while we simply got beat in transition, which had been a problem the past few years but not one we'd seen this year. This echoes what I have been saying. In some of our "good" defensive performances, guys on the opposing team have gotten multiple wide open shots and missed. Keep in mind, 9 games is also a small sample. Given the 3 years before this season, and the pre-COVID break defense, I am not ready to say our defense has gotten better yet as a general matter. And, given that there really haven't been any scheme changes, I don't see a reason why it would get better. I'm probably somewhere in the middle, fully acknowledging it's a possibility while still hopeful there was some real change in there. I know we've been working w small samples the whole season. Here's a few of the positives: 1. Schematically we have eliminated the hard hedge, and I do think that is helping to produce a slightly better overall shot profile this season. Comparison of last season to this season per hoop-math.com: At the rim: 34.8% now 33.2% 2 point jumpers: 23.3% now 27.3% 3 point shots: 41.9% now 39.5% Now is that the ideal shot profile for a defense? No probably not (although there are very efficient defensive teams that give up a lot of 3 point attempts, there's no direct correlation. Because the stat isn't capturing whether it's a contested 3 or not). But we're giving up less at the rim and less from 3, and those have funneled into 2 point jump shots. And we're not fully committed to drop coverage either. We still have times where the big gets too far out and beaten off the dribble. Or even far enough out that the weak side defender has to really dive in to tag the roller and doesn't get back. But it definitely feels closer to a sound defense than last years disaster. 2. I pointed this out in another thread, but our in-season defensive turnover percentage has really spiked. Before break it was like 13% and is now closer to 19%. That does seem to imply something a little more structural than 3 point luck helping to push this stretch And in reality, every team misses some open shots (us included), I'm not sure we can be held to the standard of no open looks ever. It does feel reduced. Like the first Nova game (and this past UConn game) definitely had that vibe of just wide open shots catching in rhythm. But there were plenty of games in the streak where those open looks felt less frequent. There's probably synergy data that breaks out open vs. covered 3s, I know it exists for NBA but haven't seen college analysis go there. That would really tell a fuller picture. And of course, the only way for the team to prove it wrong is to go do it at MSG this week. Fingers crossed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2021 16:00:43 GMT -5
I personally think that if Blair would have started the game, the game would have been totally different. Yeah, maybe we would have still lost to UConn as UConn is turning out to be the Beast of the Big East this year but, it would have been much more competitive. Bile, Q and Pickett would have been much more effective especially on the offensive end because there would have been another scorer to worry about in Blair. Instead, we were too one dimensional with feeding the ball down to the post and no alternative.
If Blair would have started, UConn would have to worry about plays being run for both Q and Blair especially in the beginning of the game. Bouknight would have to play more assertive on defense which would have take a little more energy from him. But that other guy hitting all those threes for UConn is what really killed us, not so much Bouknight.
But, maybe it was a blessing that we lost the way we did and Blair didn't start the game because with the lost, it guaranteed us not to play in the same bracket as UConn and it essentially put us in a more favorable bracket. We can now start Blair and honestly we have a much better path to the championship game and so maybe it was a blessing. Hopefully if we have to meet UConn in the championship game (hopefully somebody knocks them off before the championship game), we will be much more prepared for them.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,588
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 8, 2021 17:22:31 GMT -5
I would almost rather he say nothing than make comments that continually seem to focus the problems on individual guys rather than himself. His comments about this game did not focus on "individual guys". And yes I agree the defense was awful and commented that upthread.
|
|