It's not how many you make

[GIGAFAN99]

It's how many you take.

The Hoyas rank 15th in the Big East (a smidge ahead of USF) in FGAs per game with 50.

The Hoyas rank 15th in the Big East (ahead of the paint-allergic Mountaineers) in FTAs per game at 18.

Wonder why Green and Bowman can't make a scoring impact in the same game? It is almost impossile for them to do so as long as we take so few shots and drives in this sharing motion offense.

The only game both Brandon and Jeff scored in double-digits was Vanderbilt. What happened that game?

1. They both shot extremely well (11-18 combined)

2. Roy didn't play for almost an entire half

Now there are two ways to look at this. First, this is all fine and good and we don't care if both Jeff and Brandon score in double figures. We like our system and we'll play yawn ball all the way to the tourney.

The second way to look at this is we're unable to take advantage of Green and Bowman game in and game out because we have to either rob one of shots or hope they both shoot really well for them to be effective.

Personally I'd like to see the Hoyas at least have enough possessions in a game that Jeff can go 5-9, and 2-2 at the line for 13 and Brandon go 4-12 and 6-8 at the line for 15 without stealing shots from the guards or Roy. The more these two shoot, the more we're likely to see them find their respective grooves, get to the line, and open things up for the guards.

[RockawayHoya]

Interesting stats, Giga, and I must say this is a great analysis of our offense. On one hand, our slow tempo style of offense doesn't allow for Jeff/Brandon/Roy to all come out of the game with 15-20 points apiece simply because there aren't enough shots to go around. On the other hand, we are also limiting our opponents' possessions, and subsequently also their scoring.

Because of this, we are never going to blow anybody out besides the Stetsons and Savannah States, but we're not going to get blown out either (a key factor against teams like UConn and 'Nova). This might have been the correct strategy to run last year, with decidedly less depth and athleticism than compared to this year, but I think what a lot of people on this board who are unhappy with is the fact that our slowed down offense is keeping mediocre teams like Colgate in games against us.

I wouldn't completely advocate abandoning our current system, I will throw one opinion out there: I believe too many guys on our team are looking for the perfect shot. That's fine when we're playing a team that can't hang with us, but against teams who will D us up to the point where perfect shots are few, if any (i.e. Illinois), we will struggle mightily. Someone on this team needs to step up and be willing to take and make shots in traffic or from the perimeter with a hand in his face. This might not quicken the pace to the point where we're playing 85-82 type games, but I believe it'd be more beneficial for us to play the game in the 70's and not in the 60's. We have 8 guys who can play right now; we don't need to handicap ourselves.

[lichoya68]

agree with some of this but from what ive seen of jesse he aint the three point guy hes defense speed penetrate and go to the hoop an dish or get free for the back door but no threes jesse please do the other things go hoyas jeff and brandon pracitce those foul shots they will be important in the big easy go hoyas

[MCIGuy]

Great posts. Agree with almost all the points. Sharing the ball does not mean you have to waste so many seconds on the shot clock before you get, as written above, "the perfect shot". Besides often enough a similiar shot is available after ten or less seconds on the shot clock have run off but the Hoyas will refuse to shoot it until there's about 7 or fewer seconds before the shot clock expires. I'm sorry but you play like that when you DON'T have a high D1 talent and must slow the game to a crawl. Kinda like what Princeton did when it played very good teams in the NCAA tourney.

But worst than the use of the shot clock is the type of shots taken. For the most part the Hoyas appear to be working the ball around until they get an open look at the the three. The problem with that is that 1)a three point shot is not a high percentage shot, even when a player is left open and 2)taking a bunch of three point attempts means you are less likely to get fouled. Its the second part that is most troubling. I recall back in 2001 when the Bucks complained that the Sixers were going to the free throw line much more than them during the Eastern Conference Finals. What the Bucks didn't seem to understand was that the Sixers, lacking good three point shooters, took the ball to the basket. The Bucks, on the other hand, were more likely to stand beyond the three point line taking three pointers. Is there any wonder why Philly had more FT attempts? This Hoyas team looks too much for the long j. As a result no one drives to the hole enough for closer, easier hoops with the chance of getting fouled by drawing contact. And considering how Bowman is still travelling during the tiimes he does put the ball on the floor I'm beginning to wonder if the guys even work on the dribble drive during practice. Owens seems to have regressed on this front in that all he wants to do is take three point attempts when he actually has one of the best handles on the team and with his size should be driving all the time. But we've exhausted this argument on Owens for three years now so what's the point? On the other board I wrote that I hope Sapp doesn't develop a consistent three point shot this season. People thought I was crazy for making such a comment but my point was that this team already has enough, in Michael Wilbon's own words used to describe Reggie Miller, "prissy little jumpshooters". I would like to see some MEN who will take it to the rack when the opportunity is there. And if for some reason the "system" frown upons such drives then the "system" is a joke that needs to be dropped. Getting to the hole is part of the game and, no, its not just supposed to be accomplished by back-door cuts. Also when you get fouled you get more chances to score. The more you get fouled the more likely you are to get to the bonus. When there are four or less minutes left in the game and the Hoyas are still nowhere near the bonus (which has happened in most games I believe) there is a problem. A huge problem. Also when you cause the opposing team to pick up fouls you actually, ::gasp::, increase the possibility that the best opposing players will have to sit because of foul troubles. And those minutes that they are on the bench may be the difference in a win or a loss. Can you imagine an entire BE season in which our opponents best players never have to leave the floor because of fouls? If the Hoyas keep playing like ths there is a good chance that could become a reality. Also what has happened to a screen that gives a teammate a clear lane to the hoop through the dribble drive? Does that type of play serve no use in this offense?

Last of all the low number of field goals can also be attributed to the non-existent fast break offense. The fast break offense is non-existent because one or possibly both of our starting guards may not be all that good at initiating the break. However the main culprit is that this team refuses to press at all to create turnovers and fast break opportunities. Fast break points, scoring before the defense can get settled, is known as easy buckets. Its important for even the best teams (Duke, UConn, Illinois,...the Pistons, etc) to get easy hoops, easy scores. But maybe this coaching staff doesn't feel that is a necessity. So both field goal attempts and points are down because the Hoyas refuse to do these things.

I think I'll throw a party if this team scores 80 in a game.

[OldHoyafan]

mciguy said:

Great posts. Agree with almost all the points. Sharing the ball does not mean you have to waste so many seconds on the shot clock before you get, as written above, "the perfect shot". Besides often enough a similiar shot is available after ten or less seconds on the shot clock have run off but the Hoyas will refuse to shoot it until there's about 7 or fewer seconds before the shot clock expires. I'm sorry but you play like that when you DON'T have a high D1 talent and must slow the game to a crawl. Kinda like what Princeton did when it played very good teams in the NCAA tourney.

But worst than the use of the shot clock is the type of shots taken. For the most part the Hoyas appear to be working the ball around until they get an open look at the the three. The problem with that is that 1)a three point shot is not a high percentage shot, even when a player is left open and 2)taking a bunch of three point attempts means you are less likely to get fouled. Its the second part that is most troubling. I recall back in 2001 when the Bucks complained that the Sixers were going to the free throw line much more than them during the Eastern Conference Finals. What the Bucks didn't seem to understand was that the Sixers, lacking good three point shooters, took the ball to the basket. The Bucks, on the other hand, were more likely to stand beyond the three point line taking three pointers. Is there any wonder why Philly had more FT attempts? This Hoyas team looks too much for the long j. As a result no one drives to the hole enough for closer, easier hoops with the chance of getting fouled by drawing contact. And considering how Bowman is still travelling during the tiimes he does put the ball on the floor I'm beginning to wonder if the guys even work on the dribble drive during practice. Owens seems to have regressed on this front in that all he wants to do is take three point attempts when he actually has one of the best handles on the team and with his size should be driving all the time. But we've exhausted this argument on Owens for three years now so what's the point? On the other board I wrote that I hope Sapp doesn't develop a consistent three point shot this season. People thought I was crazy for making such a comment but my point was that this team already has enough, in Michael Wilbon's own words used to describe Reggie Miller, "prissy little jumpshooters". I would like to see some MEN who will take it to the rack when the opportunity is there. And if for some reason the "system" frown upons such drives then the "system" is a joke that needs to be dropped. Getting to the hole is part of the game and, no, its not just supposed to be accomplished by back-door cuts. Also when you get fouled you get more chances to score. The more you get fouled the more likely you are to get to the bonus. When there are four or less minutes left in the game and the Hoyas are still nowhere near the bonus (which has happened in most games I believe) there is a problem. A huge problem. Also when you cause the opposing team to pick up fouls you actually, ::gasp::, increase the possibility that the best opposing players will have to sit because of foul troubles. And those minutes that they are on the bench may be the difference in a win or a loss. Can you imagine an entire BE season in which our opponents best players never have to leave the floor because of fouls? If the Hoyas keep playing like ths there is a good chance that could become a reality. Also what has happened to a screen that gives a teammate a clear lane to the hoop through the dribble drive? Does that type of play serve no use in this offense?

Last of all the low number of field goals can also be attributed to the non-existent fast break offense. The fast break offense is non-existent because one or possibly both of our starting guards may not be all that good at initiating the break. However the main culprit is that this team refuses to press at all to create turnovers and fast break opportunities. Fast break points, scoring before the defense can get settled, is known as easy buckets. Its important for even the best teams (Duke, UConn, Illinois,...the Pistons, etc) to get easy hoops, easy scores. But maybe this coaching staff doesn't feel that is a necessity. So both field goal attempts and points are down because the Hoyas refuse to do these things.

I think I'll throw a party if this team scores 80 in a game.

I must say that I agree with some of your concerns about the lack of fastbreak baskets. This maybe a direct result of a lack of true PG ,or guard who likes to push the ball upcourt. Wallace is ,to be kind, not the swiftest of foot, therefore I don't see him pushing the ball upcourt much. Once Sapp gets more playing time and JT3 is more comfortable with his decision making we may see more of this. Some reasons for the lack of drives to the basket may be(1) because of Hibbert and Green, most opponents so far have chosen to pack their defense in, this leaves little room to drive to the hoop. (2) Wallace is not a penetrater.(3) If Cook drives to the basket and misses, this leaves Wallace as the back guard on defense to stop oppents fastbreak. Again Wallace is not your quickest defender, so cutting off that fastbreak would be a problem. I like the aggressive fastbreaking ball you are talking about too, but I believe it will come as the freshmen show JT3, they can run the offense if the break is not there.

[Jack]

So the JTIII brings in the Princeton offense and the team performs dramatically better than expected in his first year, thus raising expectations for year two. 10 games into year two the team is 8-2 but not scoring a ton of points (like the previous year), and now people want to scrap the system that worked by INTENTIONALLY minimizing the number of possessions and shots for both teams, despite the lack of any guard who has shown the ability to get to the basket off the dribble?

Fellas, relax. This team wins games in the 60's, it's time to deal with that fact. True, they had superior athletic talent to most opponents in this OOC and could have played faster and won by bigger margins. They probably could have gone inside more and taken more easy shots (although the idea that a contested 2 is a "higher percentage" shot than an open 3, even if it goes in more often, is ludicrous). They probably could have pressed and trapped to create more turnovers and easy transition points.

But none of that would have helped win the two losses, and none of that would have helped prepare the team for the Big East, where almost every opponent is as athletic if not moreso. The time may come when the athletic talent on the team is such that they can run a faster, Sacramento Kings-type Princeton offense, and based on the recruiting analysts, that time could come soon, but it is not here yet, so practicing the style they will have to play during the regular season makes a lot more sense than running up the rate stats to make us happy that our guys are among the league leaders.

[njcoach]

mciguy said:

Great posts. Agree with almost all the points. Sharing the ball does not mean you have to waste so many seconds on the shot clock before you get, as written above, "the perfect shot". Besides often enough a similiar shot is available after ten or less seconds on the shot clock have run off but the Hoyas will refuse to shoot it until there's about 7 or fewer seconds before the shot clock expires. I'm sorry but you play like that when you DON'T have a high D1 talent and must slow the game to a crawl. Kinda like what Princeton did when it played very good teams in the NCAA tourney.

.

Right. The so-called Princeton offense is designed to CONTROL tempo, not necessarily slow it down. Princeton often used it to reduce the number of opposing possessions against teams like, well, Georgetown. (By the way they lost to mighty Carnegie-Mellon last night, shooting 16% from the field in the 2nd half.)

It is easy enough to play up-tempo within the offense by taking the open shot when it is first available in the possession. The idea is to spread the defense in order to create open opportunities on the perimeter and create one-on-one matchups that can be exploited inside. Gotta be able to hit the 3, though, to make it work.

There is no reason that a team running this offense cannot run the break. Just look at the Nets when they started running it. Kidd, Jefferson, and Martin had plenty of fast breaks. The fact that GU doesn't run much might indicate either a coaching preference or a problem with defensive rebounding. I have not seen the team this year so I won't speculate.

[SaxaCD]

I think it has to do with defensive rebounding and not enough ace ballhandlers to break effectively.

[SFHoya99]

gigafan99 said:

It's how many you take.

The Hoyas rank 15th in the Big East (a smidge ahead of USF) in FGAs per game with 50.

The Hoyas rank 15th in the Big East (ahead of the paint-allergic Mountaineers) in FTAs per game at 18.

Wonder why Green and Bowman can't make a scoring impact in the same game? It is almost impossile for them to do so as long as we take so few shots and drives in this sharing motion offense.

The only game both Brandon and Jeff scored in double-digits was Vanderbilt. What happened that game?

1. They both shot extremely well (11-18 combined)

2. Roy didn't play for almost an entire half

Now there are two ways to look at this. First, this is all fine and good and we don't care if both Jeff and Brandon score in double figures. We like our system and we'll play yawn ball all the way to the tourney.

The second way to look at this is we're unable to take advantage of Green and Bowman game in and game out because we have to either rob one of shots or hope they both shoot really well for them to be effective.

Personally I'd like to see the Hoyas at least have enough possessions in a game that Jeff can go 5-9, and 2-2 at the line for 13 and Brandon go 4-12 and 6-8 at the line for 15 without stealing shots from the guards or Roy. The more these two shoot, the more we're likely to see them find their respective grooves, get to the line, and open things up for the guards.

Giga,

There's a lot of truth in you post, but there's a couple of subtleties that I think need to be addressed.

There is a real benefit in increasing the number of shots without increasing possessions. By reducing turnovers and getting more offensive boards, the team gets more shots and thus more points without allowing the opposing team those opportunities.

But I think you are talking about increasing pace -- or the number of possessions. And there, I'm not in agreement yet.

At its heart, increasing pace does two things. One, it changes the style of the game. Two, it decreases a chance of upset by giving the better team more opportunities to differentiate itself.

Is that a style of game we want to play? Despite MCI's desperate pleas to watch a fast-break team, we simply aren't equipped well for it. He can trump up the players' abilities all he wants, but our players' strengths just aren't in running the court. I give you not only this season and last season, but Esherick's last season, when we tried to run, as evidence. Just a disaster.

Okay, taking away the fast break -- do we want to run a quicker half court game as well? The Dallas Mavericks have a philosophy that if you shoot it quick, you have less chance of turning it over. And they are right. But the Mavericks also worked best when they had a good shooter at almost every position (and we a jump shooting team). We're not there. Seems like a mismatch.

Read opposing teams' papers. In about half of our wins, the opponents will mention how our half court style "took them out of their game" because they are run and jump athletes with little discipline. Why do you think we destroyed Oregon?

So the only reason I can see to intentionally pick up the pace is to increase player stats and if your theory of "in the flow" is true. The former argument is lacking to me; I'd rather win.

The latter is unproven and I'm skeptical. "Flow" seems unlikely to me to be valid. First of all, it is one of those "grass is greener" things. With Esherick's heavy substitutions, we had no "flow." With Thompson's seven man rotation, we have no depth AND no flow because they don't shoot enough! I just doubt it. It isn't like Green isn't getting minutes; he just is not agressive.

I see no reason to intentionally increase pace.

Unintentionally increase pace? Sure. I'd love to see that. I agree wholeheartedly that this team passes up too many good looks (both 3, drives, and entry passes to post players) and looks hesitant.

Do I think that is because Thompson told me to hold down the pace versus Colgate? No. The team is slow to make decisions, but will get better.

The pace is fine. So it is boring? I'd rather win, and right now, this style seems best suited to our personnel.

[RockawayHoya]

It's really incredible how there are so many viewpoints in this thread, often times conflicting, but yet nobody is wrong. I'll respond to them all:

MCI and OHF: Correct that we need to increase our number of easy baskets in transition. I'm not saying we should be turning into the Phoenix Suns overnight, but we must take advantage (especially against weaker teams) when the opportunity is there. Regardless of how our halfcourt offense is being executed, a 2 on 1 break after a defensive stop will most likely yield a better shot than our halfcourt offense. And as for "the perfect shot" comment; I am not pushing for our guys to shoot wildly contested shots. I'm just saying we wouldn't be hurt if someone was willing to take a good shot with 15 seconds left in the shot clock rather than always trying to find a wide open guy with 3 seconds left in the shot clock and the crowd counting down. I saw that countless times in the Vanderbilt game; where people were tentative to take good shots and trying way too hard to get better ones. And that really hurt us, because many times we'd end up taking poorer shots than the ones we passed up because we were rushed by the potential of shot clock violations.

Jack, NJC, Saxa: I'm fully aware we've been much more successful with the current system than during the last days of Esh, but to say "Oh, we're winning every game by a close margin, we don't need to improve." I'm telling you, the obly thing that saved this offense from being criticized by 90% of this board was a superhuman effort by Roy at JMU. Despite eyewitness reports saying that "it was their championship game" and "they played out of their minds," that is a team that still should not have hung with us for that long. Saxa's response was right on the money, though. We don't have that speedy guard with an above averae handle who can lead breaks with poise and efficiency, nor are we rebounding effectively enough to start those breaks at the current time. And not deliberately quickening the pace, but instead "taking good shots and not trying to find perfect ones," is what killed us in the Vandy game, Jack. We would have won that game had people decided to step up and take open shots (DJ, Wallace, etc.)

SF: Turnovers is a great point. How are we doing so far this year compared to last year? And I think your phrase "unintentionally increase pace" is exactly what I've been trying to get at.

[GIGAFAN99]

I'm not advocating gunning, just getting more chances at the line and from the floor. I say we need a handful more posessions and suddenly we're "fundamentally changing the pace." No, I think we're "fundamentally changing the pace" NOW to the point where it seems forced, like we're trying to set a record for halfcourt passes. I think we can get a few more possession without changing one thing about our offense other than shooting at 15 seconds on the shot clock a couple more times instead of 5.

It is completely infeasible to me that somewhere, somehow 30 seconds is exactly the amount of time needed to get a good basketball shot, especially when we end up settling for worse shots with the clock running down much of the time. And it also lends itself to offensive fouls where someone drives just to "get a shot off" rather than to attack the basket.

There are plenty of reasons to do this, especially against a running team. And yes we'd like to take advantage of having Roy by allowing him to set up both offensively and defensively.

But what about a halfcourt team like ND? Do we want to get into a shooting match with the Irish this year? I don't think so. And by slowing the game down we're betting our shooters beat theirs essentially. I'd rather bet our frontcourt beats theirs by taking advantage of one-on-one opportunities on the secondary break or when the chance presents itself.

I love Princeton's offense, but Princeton isn't stall ball. Stall ball is stall ball and we're playing a lot of it for a team that has some match-ups we can exploit.

I'll leave you with this. We're averaging 50 FGAs. That's the number we took in the Villanova game a few years back where they had all the players suspended for the phone card incident. That was the most stallingnest of stall ball in the history of stallingnesstitude. I can't believe we aren't passing up at least a few opportunities by playing that kind of game.

[GIGAFAN99]

Well Rockaway's post beat me too just about every point. Thanks Rock. I agree with you.

[Highsmith]

While many of the numbers quoted in the original posting of this thread are accurate, I don't think they give the full picture of this team. The "Princeton System" is based around slowing down tempo and playing with efficiency. These numbers show that we are very good in most of these respects-

Georgetown is ranked-

#1 in the BE and #3 in the nation in Points per weighted shot (the efficiency of turning FG/FT attempts into points)

#2 in the BE and #17 in the nation in Effective FG% (takes the higher value of 3ptrs into account)

#4 in the BE and #15 in the nation in Offensive Rating

#8 in the BE and #47 in the nation in Defensive Rating

#2 in the BE and #15 in the nation in Fouls per Game

#3 in the BE and #5 in the nation in Assist to TO ratio

#4 in the BE and #18 in the nation in TO rate

#4 in the BE and #18 in the nation in Blocks to foul ratio

#6 in the BE and #38 in the nation in Floor%- (FGM+OR)/(FGA+TO)

I see the majority of these rankings as pretty positive indicators of our team and system......if we can get some improvement in rebounding and can continue this level of efficiency (it should improve with more experience), then we should be headed for a very successful season.

We'd all love to see Roy, Brandon, Jeff, Ashanti and Darrell light it up every night with us beating teams 95-50, 108-43, 97-45, etc. That is not the system we have in place. This system keeps us in the high 60's to low 70's range and we are going to continue seeing scores like the ones we have seen so far this season, with an occasional outburst by us or (hopefully not) our opponent. We should be in every game we play this year and may keep some teams in games longer than we should......it is a trade-off that this system demands, at least right now. Enjoy our victories and keep in mind the system we are playing with before we get too worked up about our supposed short-comings.

[MCIGuy]

Someone seems to suggest that Giga and I are advocating that the Hoyas try to pretend they are the second coming of Tark's Running Rebels. Not the case. We know the team is not a first rate fast break team and it would be stupid of them to try to outrun the superior squads. But we have to stop using this bogus excuse that the players on this team are incapable of running a break. That's absurd. How much longer are we gonna use that crutch? There is nothing about Bowman, Green, Cook,Thornton, Spann, Sapp, Egerson and Owens that tells me they can't get the job done. Why do people still doubt the skill and athleticism of these guys? Hell, even Hibbs runs the floor better this season. Obviously running is not going to be part of the Hoyas' main game plan. But when the opportunity is there they should not squander it. Even if it means a few more turnovers a game it will be worth it in the end.

You know even if you think the Hoyas can't fastbreak all that well, that should not mean they shouldn't try. Learing to run an effective fast break is something that can be coached after all. Without a doubt there are teams out there with inferior personnel top to bottom than GU who are no more natural at running and yet are far deadlier at it than Georgetown. That's because the coaches make it sure its a part of their teams' offensive arsenal and as a result work on it in drills all the time. Is it any easier to teach players to make passes around the perimeter than it is to teach them how to quickly and correctly fill the lanes when an opportunity for a quick score comes along. I don't think it is. This Hoya team may not have the personnel to be a good rebounding unit either but does that mean they should not try to be? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Well, so does not trying to create opportunities to get easy baskets for goodness sakes. All teams need easy scores to be very successful. The Hoyas are trying to prove otherwise it appears but I think they are going to learn the hard way that not getting such easy, quick scores will lead to squandered opportunities at wins. The Hoya team that played during Esh's last year were inferior to the current squad. But I'm sure that same Esherick team would have gotten a lot more than zero fast break points against Colgate. Of course they may have lost to Colgate too but they would ahve least made some opportunities for themselves to get uncontested baskets. If this current, superior Hoya team did so as well the Colgate game would have never been in doubt.

Now lets just scuttle the whole fast break argument altogether. Lets deal with other issues. If Owens or Wallace or Green get the same look with 20 seconds left on the clock as they do ultimately with five seconds left on the clock, then why pass on that initial opportunity? A good look is a good look. Take the shot. Please. The Hoyas are limiting their opportunities when they milk the clock for no reason. Teams who have milked the clock like that over the years have tended to be inferior teams who wanted to limit the opponents' opportunities. But when you have the superior talent, as the Hoyas did against Savannah State, then please explain to me what's the point of holding on to the rock?Because I really want to know.

Last of all if you don't think the lack of free throws is a problem you have your head buried in the sand. Having four guys from one team who are on the court taking only three pointers is a recipe for disaster if it means they stand around that line instead all game without driving.

[RockawayHoya]

mciguy said:

Now lets just scuttle the whole fast break argument altogether. Lets deal with other issues. If Owens or Wallace or Green get the same look with 20 seconds left on the clock as they do ultimately with five seconds left on the clock, then why pass on that initial opportunity? A good look is a good look. Take the shot. Please. The Hoyas are limiting their opportunities when they milk the clock for no reason. Teams who have milked the clock like that over the years have tended to be inferior teams who wanted to limit the opponents' opportunities. But when you have the superior talent, as the Hoyas did against Savannah State, then please explain to me what's the point of holding on to the rock?Because I really want to know.

Therein lies the key to this argument. For all those who feel like we are saying we want to see a run-and-gun team that scores in the 90s, just read the above statement. That is really all we are asking for. A good shot taken with 20 seconds left on the shot clock is no worse than a good shot taken with 5 seconds left on the shot clock. And if we have a 3 on 2 break, I'd rather we try to force the issue rather than allow the opponent's halfcourt defense to set. Simple as that.

And I know this is probably a bad example just because of the individual I'm using, but I'm pretty sure Rick Pitino used to pull his players (even his studs for a possession or two) if they: A) took a bad shot, or B) PASSED UP A GOOD SHOT. Again, we are not advocating trying to run every team we face out of the building. But milking the clock on purpose is detrimental to this year's team.

[SFHoya99]

A quick response to all the long posts:

There seems to be an impression that Thompson has directed the players to use all 35 seconds of the shot clock or to not fast break at all. Am I representing you right? Are we specifically trying to bleed clock (aside from the usual late game bleeding)? Are we pulling out of fast breaks at Thompson's direction?

I can't speak for the UTEP game, blind as I was to it (although I swear there was a DJ steal and layin -- how was that not fast break? And I know we blew a two on one earlier in the game). But in each of the games I've seen, added to what Thompson has said, it isn't really my impression.

I just think the team is tentative. I've watched every televised game twice, and I see packets of aggression. Ashanti versus Oregon, for example. Thompson didn't pull him when he shot early; in fact, he kept feeding him. Despite people thinking otherwise, Roy has an incredible shot to possessions on the floor ratio -- the offense has fed him, and not always at the end of the clock.

I agree that the offense sometimes passes up good shots. One, I think it is tentativeness on the players' part. On some level, that tentativeness is justified, is it not? If I know I can get that shot anytime, why not look for a better one? I can get back to it later.

The offense is remarkably efficient doing this. Oh, sure, it looks bad when we take a bad, late three, but man, we get a lot of late shot clock layups and dagger threes.

I realize that a GREAT offense has outside shooting, post play, pentration and fast break skills. We're no so special on the latter two so we end up taking a lot more of the former. Seems like playing within ourselves rather than forcing it, to me. It's just not a game you like to watch. I fully realize this isn't a great offense. But I do think it is doing a better job of maximizing our talents and skills than others.

I'm not concerned one bit about the score versus Savannah State or Colgate. I care once we start playing some real teams.

[RockawayHoya]

sfhoya99 said:

good shots. One, I think it is tentativeness on the players' part. On some level, that tentativeness is justified, is it not? If I know I can get that shot anytime, why not look for a better one? I can get back to it later.

The point is they CAN'T always get that good shot anytime. Which makes it rough when they pass them up. And especially against good teams, which might only allow you one decent look per possession, if you don't take that opportunity at a good shot, you end up with either a rushed shot towards the end of the shot clock or a shot clock violation. In both our losses, that was the case, IMHO. Granted, we probably still don't beat Illinois, but I really believe the outcome of the Vandy game could have been different.

[SFHoya99]

rockawayhoya said:

sfhoya99 said:

good shots. One, I think it is tentativeness on the players' part. On some level, that tentativeness is justified, is it not? If I know I can get that shot anytime, why not look for a better one? I can get back to it later.

The point is they CAN'T always get that good shot anytime. Which makes it rough when they pass them up. And especially against good teams, which might only allow you one decent look per possession, if you don't take that opportunity at a good shot, you end up with either a rushed shot towards the end of the shot clock or a shot clock violation. In both our losses, that was the case, IMHO. Granted, we probably still don't beat Illinois, but I really believe the outcome of the Vandy game could have been different.

That's a good point, though I disagree about Vandy. That was a huge defensive breakdown as well -- just a complete collapse.

The team is too tentative. I just think it is something that comes with time. I also think it is not nearly as tentative as fans think it is -- those who hate it are looking for it and ignore when the team isn't tentative.

[RockawayHoya]

You're probably right SF, about the team's tentativeness. It's up to III to kick these guys in the butt and make them realize a good shot not taken within the offense is just as bad, or even worse than a poor shot taken within the offense with the shot clock winding down. If the team has a mindset where they are going to be penalized (by benching, scolding, etc.) if they pass up a good shot, it will help us in the long run, regardless of what kind of tempo we are trying to dictate.

[MCIGuy]

sfhoya99 said:

. Seems like playing within ourselves rather than forcing it, to me. It's just not a game you like to

Hey, if I was rooting for the Hoyas all these years because of style points then I'm the biggest moron in the world. The Hoyas have rarely played exciting offense since I've been following them. So this is more than being about what I or others like to watch. Its about winning games. Its about the team putting itself in a position to put away a team so they don't end up with a L or a closer-than-should-be game which keeps the starters on the floor too many minutes and as a result limits time for the players on the bench. Its about the team getting enough chances to put up points (such as through easy baskets) so they have enough cushion to withstand second half comebacks (like against Vandy).

You ask if we think JTIII is intentionally asking his players to use up clock. I don't know. The answer is likely "no". Yet I also don't ever read comments from JTIII in which he addresses the issue so therefore he must not think its a problem. To me that's troubling. Granted what Thompson says to the media and what he says to his team could be entirely different. But I was discouraged by his comments praising his team's toughness against Colgate. If it was me I would have been all over my team for its uninspired performance and I wouldn't care if the press knew about it. I have read/heard all sorts of comments from JTIII about ball movement, sharing, looking for the best shot, defense, rebounding, etc. All good things to stress no doubt. But I would love to hear him say something about wanting his team to take the stress off their total reliance on the halfcourt game by getting easier baskets on the break. I would love him to mention that he is worried that his team isn't going to the free throw line enough. It reminds me of when he was quoted talking about Owens in all those pre-season magazines. He said Owens can't just think of himself as a shooter because that limits him. I got all giddy assuming he meant Owens should drive more. Instead he never brought that up. He simply commented that Owens should rebound more and concentrate more on defense too. Not a bad idea. But where were the references to DJ attacking the rim more.

Seriously III should take advice from his dad on this one issue. JT, when talking about the great perimeter players like MJ, Kobe, AI, etc always refers to them getting to the line because they are aggressive. I'm not putting DJ at that level of course. But JT, even when talking about college players he knows won't make the NBA, mentions that good players (or players who want to be good) should emulate that type of aggression and go to the hole. This team needs its players to do more of that.