MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Apr 21, 2024 5:08:51 GMT -5
Not to be negative but going into the off season all I heard was we need a true pg. A pass first floor leader. Like the mack commit but is he a pg? Seems little like Epps. Little concerned we are a bit better overall but didn’t address a severe need. Mack is viewed as a point guard by virtually every expert and fan. Whoever said anything about a pass-first point guard is living in the wrong century. You rarely find guys like that. Point guards get their points now too, not too many John Stocktons out there. Rowan had some of that old school mentality within him and I would have loved if he had stayed, but even with Rowan on the court that ball was not moving and there wasn’t much creating for teammates. Mack is far more dynamic with the rock and has great passing instincts and capabilities. His ability to score helps keep defenses off balance. Defenders were not concerned in the least in BE play when Rowan was on the court; all of their attention was focused on Epps. Mack gives Epps at the very least a teammate who should demand the defenses’ attention just as much, taking some of that focus off of Epps. He can also take away most of the ball handling responsibilities from Epps, who last season had to bring up the ball across half court more than anyone else…and then be counted on to score too. Maybe Epps won’t like that so much but it will be better for him nonetheless. Also Mack through drives and kickouts may be able to get Epps better open looks during games. Hopefully all of this will make Epps more rested and more efficient in BE play. And with an improved front court Epps can show off some more of his own creativity by dishing to teammates for scores. I'll add that the very best point guard that I have seen in my years of watching college hoops was Kenny Anderson. He was not a pass-first point guard but he was a GREAT passer. He had tremendous speed and quickness with the ball and could drive around people or drive to the hoop using either hand. His midrange shot was money and you had to respect him from deep. And he made outstanding passes to teammates. All of this made it difficult for defenses to contain him because you never knew which tool from his toolbox he was going to pull out. Although not a that level, I see some Anderson in Mack's game.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Apr 21, 2024 6:19:57 GMT -5
I’m just trying to figure out the part of the Venn diagram that is “has heard enough about Mack to have an opinion about his game” but also “have not heard Mack described as a point guard.” I’ve never seen him described as anything but a point guard, and he’s been at or near the top of every list of portal point guards.
|
|
wolveribe
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 376
|
Post by wolveribe on Apr 21, 2024 8:25:58 GMT -5
Mack is unquestionably a PG. What else would he be called?
Williams wouldn't have been my first choice but he fits a need as a 3 and D wing player. He was a former top 100 guy and sometimes players need a year or 2 to adjust to college and Cooley was really good at identifying these types of players at Providence.
Add an impactful center and another backup PG and I think we are in business.
A real center puts this as the best team we have had in awhile.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 21, 2024 11:20:41 GMT -5
Mack is unquestionably a PG. What else would he be called? Williams wouldn't have been my first choice but he fits a need as a 3 and D wing player. He was a former top 100 guy and sometimes players need a year or 2 to adjust to college and Cooley was really good at identifying these types of players at Providence. Add an impactful center and another backup PG and I think we are in business. A real center puts this as the best team we have had in awhile. How about a guard? That's it, no more, no less. I don't care whether Mack is a PG or not I only care if he's a ball-mover or not. That will determine his effectiveness more than anything. The best teams in this era have playmakers(ball-movers) all over the court.
|
|
wolveribe
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 376
|
Post by wolveribe on Apr 21, 2024 11:30:59 GMT -5
A guard that will have the ball more than anyone and have a large amount of assists.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,785
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 21, 2024 12:27:44 GMT -5
It all just depends what the other reasonable options were. A shooter was an area of clear need. If we didn't have a good read on a top tier shooter, this makes perfect sense. A still young player, with size, that reputationally can shoot, likely didn't require much NIL, and doesn't scare off any of our current players. In some sense, this is an example of the staff perhaps learning from last year and locking in what may be a good growth option rather than swinging for the fences and getting left with really bad options That said, I don't think anyone can blame a Georgetown fan of being skeptical of guys with a good shooting rep and bad shooting stats. We have a ridiculous number of recent players who were supposed to be shooters but weren't. I didn't watch any Louisville last year -- how does a guy with his HS rep shoot less than 29% from three last year? Those are Stephen Domingo numbers, and that's not encouraging.
|
|
|
Post by dariantownesvanzandt on Apr 21, 2024 12:31:45 GMT -5
Otto: 22% from 3 as a FR LJ: 24% Jessie Sapp: 20% Jagan: 24% Markel: 25%
All total flameouts - never heard from again.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,785
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 21, 2024 12:36:59 GMT -5
Otto: 22% from 3 as a FR LJ: 24% Jessie Sapp: 20% Jagan: 24% Markel: 25% All total flameouts - never heard from again. Sure. But there's more who started there and never got better. Like I said ... our recent history with shooting specialists / great hs shooters is pretty godawful. I hope he simply had a bad freshmen year but certainly we'd all feel better if he had shot 40% from 3 last year?
|
|
bluegray79
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by bluegray79 on Apr 21, 2024 13:02:11 GMT -5
I like the trend we're on with the last 2 commits of adding length. When you look at Marquette, Seton Hall, St. John's, even Butler -- several of the teams that created mismatches with us due (in part) to their length. I like what it can mean for us in terms of defensive matchups, rebounding, disruptions, the mismatches we can create. Cliff would, of course, add to that. Keep the long, strong guys coming, Ed!
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 21, 2024 13:12:32 GMT -5
A guard that will have the ball more than anyone and have a large amount of assists. You shouldn’t judge a high number of assists with good play, Spears averaged more for Gtown than Mack averaged for Harvard but we all know he wasn’t an effective team player overall.
|
|
|
Post by dariantownesvanzandt on Apr 21, 2024 14:19:53 GMT -5
Otto: 22% from 3 as a FR LJ: 24% Jessie Sapp: 20% Jagan: 24% Markel: 25% All total flameouts - never heard from again. Sure. But there's more who started there and never got better. Like I said ... our recent history with shooting specialists / great hs shooters is pretty godawful. I hope he simply had a bad freshmen year but certainly we'd all feel better if he had shot 40% from 3 last year? That argument's pretty anecdotal. I get it - we've had a bad run. But kids who are worthy of minutes - and play them - overwhelmingly end up improving their shooting from two AND three over time. Curtis might end up being a bust - a la Stephen Domingo - but the odds he will continue to shoot it anywhere near 28.7% from three in regular minutes are pretty slim. Honestly, w/o watching much of his play, I'd be more concerned w/ the 2PFG% than the 3. But that, too, should improve -- along w/ his 2FGA/3FGA ratio (less 3s) -- as he and his game mature. p.s. - I forgot Mac (28%) & Jabril (24%) on the list above. I guess that rebuttal came from the "how does a guy with his HS rep shoot less than 29% from three last year" comment. At the end of the day, you can't just be one-dimensional - whether you hit threes or not. Kaiden shot 37% from three two years ago, and you couldn't find a person in HoyaLand ready to put him in a rotation -- even playing him at his "natural" position... whatever that was.
|
|
wolveribe
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 376
|
Post by wolveribe on Apr 21, 2024 15:25:54 GMT -5
A guard that will have the ball more than anyone and have a large amount of assists. You shouldn’t judge a high number of assists with good play, Spears averaged more for Gtown than Mack averaged for Harvard but we all know he wasn’t an effective team player overall. At this point are you just arguing to argue? Mack is a PG that is a good player, and will have a lot of assists. Go ahead and break that down. Anyone that tries to argue that mack is not a PG is losing credibility. Spears had a 30% assist ratio with 17% turnover rate. Mack had a 33% assist rate with 14% turnovers as a true freshman. Spears had a .480 TS%, Mack had .536.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,785
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 21, 2024 16:20:01 GMT -5
I guess that rebuttal came from the "how does a guy with his HS rep shoot less than 29% from three last year" comment. Yes, players do tend to improve, and often the biggest jump is from freshmen to sophomore year. I would point out relative to the quoted comment that none of your examples were guys listed as dead eye three point shooters out of high school -- I think it's still a valid question as to why a player who has shooting as a key strength shot so poorly. And my original question was more honest than meant to be cutting -- I really would love to know why he shot so poorly from anyone who watched Louisville. We need shooting, so getting a shooter is great. But I'd be a bit more excited if the shooter had shot better last year. You can look at this and say, hey, we got a Top 100 recruit that just needed a year (hopefully) to adjust. But also, he just might not be that good. I've really go no specific opinion on the player; just saying ... I think Hoya fans are a bit gunshy on shooting specialists and it's not unearned.
|
|
traversb
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 397
|
Post by traversb on Apr 21, 2024 16:33:47 GMT -5
It all just depends what the other reasonable options were. A shooter was an area of clear need. If we didn't have a good read on a top tier shooter, this makes perfect sense. A still young player, with size, that reputationally can shoot, likely didn't require much NIL, and doesn't scare off any of our current players. In some sense, this is an example of the staff perhaps learning from last year and locking in what may be a good growth option rather than swinging for the fences and getting left with really bad options That said, I don't think anyone can blame a Georgetown fan of being skeptical of guys with a good shooting rep and bad shooting stats. We have a ridiculous number of recent players who were supposed to be shooters but weren't. I didn't watch any Louisville last year -- how does a guy with his HS rep shoot less than 29% from three last year? Those are Stephen Domingo numbers, and that's not encouraging. It’s the annual summer tradition of HT talking themselves into a streaky shooter being a good shooter. Williams got his reputation as he had a pretty good shooting AAU summer highlighted by a big game over the #1 team where he was on fire. Even with that game and the somewhat limited attempts he finished the summer at 39% which is good but hardly knock down shooter range. He went through a stretch of games last year where he was 3/30 and in that stretch he was 1/20. Good shooters don’t do that. He was also only a 71% FT shooter. Again that’s fine but hardly elite. Like many past Hoyas he can get hot but is not very consistent right now. He certainly doesn’t fill the shooting need for this team. Those pointing out other players who had bad FR stats are guys who never became great consistent. Otto had his great year and was just obviously a different level of player. Curtis took more 3s last season than pretty much all of them did in their SR seasons as well. There’s also people touting his defense here when anyone that watched Louisville could see he was their worst defender. He was only a freshman and as I said before one year does not make a career. The thing I will say is he is young for his class which is the biggest reason for hope. I don’t think he was an egregious pickup by any means. Just this early in the cycle and with what we already have it didn’t seem like a need.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,785
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 21, 2024 16:41:09 GMT -5
Even with that game and the somewhat limited attempts he finished the summer at 39% which is good but hardly knock down shooter range. 39% isn't chopped liver, either, though. Yes, there are tons of folks here who take the positive point of view, but there's a lot of doomsayers as well. All I've seen is people noting his wingspan. Freshmen are generally bad at defense, so I will wait and see on that. I think what I am seeing more is that he's a fine pickup if he's not expected to come in and necessarily be a significant contributor but is a bit more of a depth/upside play. The problem, at times, with trying to grab a shooter is that the shooters often are lacking so much in other parts of their game that there's a problematic trade-off to simply go for a shooter. I expect outside shooting to be a relative weakness next year, but I think net we're still way up as we simply weren't that good this year and any defensive improvement will dwarf the 10-20 3s we're probably going to miss.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 21, 2024 17:21:59 GMT -5
You shouldn’t judge a high number of assists with good play, Spears averaged more for Gtown than Mack averaged for Harvard but we all know he wasn’t an effective team player overall. At this point are you just arguing to argue? Mack is a PG that is a good player, and will have a lot of assists. Go ahead and break that down. Anyone that tries to argue that mack is not a PG is losing credibility. Spears had a 30% assist ratio with 17% turnover rate. Mack had a 33% assist rate with 14% turnovers as a true freshman. Spears had a .480 TS%, Mack had .536. I’m saying I don’t care whether or not Mack is called a point guard or not, he’s definitely a ball handler but the only label I really care about is whether he’s a ball mover or a ball stopper. Even with a 30% assist rate Spears was a ball stopper. Epps despite his 28% assist in rate was a ball stopper last season as well, my hope is that he grows the ball moving part of his game over the offseason. I haven’t seen enough of Mack to make a judgement either way my hope is he’s the former.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,785
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 21, 2024 17:42:16 GMT -5
At this point are you just arguing to argue? Mack is a PG that is a good player, and will have a lot of assists. Go ahead and break that down. Anyone that tries to argue that mack is not a PG is losing credibility. Spears had a 30% assist ratio with 17% turnover rate. Mack had a 33% assist rate with 14% turnovers as a true freshman. Spears had a .480 TS%, Mack had .536. I’m saying I don’t care whether or not Mack is called a point guard or not, he’s definitely a ball handler but the only label I really care about is whether he’s a ball mover or a ball stopper. Even with a 30% assist rate Spears was a ball stopper. Epps despite his 28% assist in rate was a ball stopper last season as well, my hope is that he grows the ball moving part of his game over the offseason. I haven’t seen enough of Mack to make a judgement either way my hope is he’s the former. He used 30% of possession and 30% of shots as the primary PG. There's some level of ball-stopping there. He's a primary creator. It's all going to be a matter of degree, and that won't just depend on the player but also the other options out there.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxaphone on Apr 21, 2024 18:34:31 GMT -5
Cooley obviously knows Williamson pretty well having gone after him at Providence. Not convinced he is a "shooter" by any means, but a reasonable get at this point. Notre Dame recently got a 6'"4 graduate transfer from Princeton who shot 43% from 3, 57% from 2, and 91% from the line. No idea what about the defensive side of his game is like but THOSE are shooter stats, to go along with 3.3 assists (vs. 1.3 turnovers) and 3 rebounds per game. Pretty much an unranked player out of high school. For all of the athleticism that Cooley is bringing in, I think the Hoyas could use a guy like this.
|
|
wolveribe
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 376
|
Post by wolveribe on Apr 21, 2024 18:39:46 GMT -5
That said, I don't think anyone can blame a Georgetown fan of being skeptical of guys with a good shooting rep and bad shooting stats. We have a ridiculous number of recent players who were supposed to be shooters but weren't. I didn't watch any Louisville last year -- how does a guy with his HS rep shoot less than 29% from three last year? Those are Stephen Domingo numbers, and that's not encouraging. It’s the annual summer tradition of HT talking themselves into a streaky shooter being a good shooter. Williams got his reputation as he had a pretty good shooting AAU summer highlighted by a big game over the #1 team where he was on fire. Even with that game and the somewhat limited attempts he finished the summer at 39% which is good but hardly knock down shooter range. He went through a stretch of games last year where he was 3/30 and in that stretch he was 1/20. Good shooters don’t do that. He was also only a 71% FT shooter. Again that’s fine but hardly elite. Like many past Hoyas he can get hot but is not very consistent right now. He certainly doesn’t fill the shooting need for this team. Those pointing out other players who had bad FR stats are guys who never became great consistent. Otto had his great year and was just obviously a different level of player. Curtis took more 3s last season than pretty much all of them did in their SR seasons as well. There’s also people touting his defense here when anyone that watched Louisville could see he was their worst defender. He was only a freshman and as I said before one year does not make a career. The thing I will say is he is young for his class which is the biggest reason for hope. I don’t think he was an egregious pickup by any means. Just this early in the cycle and with what we already have it didn’t seem like a need. Pretty much everything that is said about him says good shooter. I have not seen his senior year stats, it was his junior year that he shot 39%. He reportedly shot very well for the Family in AAU and game writeups/youtube highlights show multiple threes per game. Having said that, 39% is really good for a high volume high schooler. WhY are we using 21 free throw attempts to prove anything?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 21, 2024 19:24:53 GMT -5
I’m saying I don’t care whether or not Mack is called a point guard or not, he’s definitely a ball handler but the only label I really care about is whether he’s a ball mover or a ball stopper. Even with a 30% assist rate Spears was a ball stopper. Epps despite his 28% assist in rate was a ball stopper last season as well, my hope is that he grows the ball moving part of his game over the offseason. I haven’t seen enough of Mack to make a judgement either way my hope is he’s the former. He used 30% of possession and 30% of shots as the primary PG. There's some level of ball-stopping there. He's a primary creator. It's all going to be a matter of degree, and that won't just depend on the player but also the other options out there . I agree, I think the roster has the ball moving pieces on the wings(Peavy, Caleb W.) & in the front-court(Fielder & Sorber) so we'll see how well the back-court players come together.
|
|