|
Post by guhoyasfan36 on Jan 14, 2007 10:36:23 GMT -5
2) I hope this puts the rest the notion that it's impossible to rally from a large deficit when employing the princeton offense. I disagree. When coming down to the end of the game when time management is important, I still think it takes to long to develop a shot in our offense. It seems instead of trying to penetrate and create a bucket/foul, We pass the ball around the perimeter which makes us easy to guard. That's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by guhoyasfan36 on Jan 14, 2007 10:59:14 GMT -5
I give credit to Pitt tonight. They had everything bouncing their way for sure, still can't believe some of the shots that rattled in for them. The Nova thorn still stuck in my side is flaring up though, I hate losing to a team you know that's not as a good. Here's a couple of my observations for the game. 1) Jeff should take more people off the dribble...especially when we play 5 on the perimeter. 2)Pitt was at home and definately got more of the calls. Not the reason we lost, but not a help either 3)Rivers seems to be getting more pt than he probably should, hope this experience will pay off later, because it isn't helping us now 4)Roy played a decent game...would like to see him work the blocks more often though 5)I didn't think much of Cook as person but he had his game tonight(Cook was doing 90% of the jawing and Summers was only probably telling him to Shut up) 6)We need to rebound better, It seemed that when they did miss what seemed like the only 2 shots of the game they got the rebound(case and point: 2 minute pocession at end of game)
Overall a better performance, would have beat most teams tonight. Either way and L is and L and we can ill afford anymore...Lets get on roll and play to our potential. If we give our best efforts(players, coaches, and fans) and still lose then I can live with it. Otherwise I have to vent my aggressions on a chat board to people who have the sickness of Love for HOYA basketball.
|
|
|
Post by wildhoya on Jan 14, 2007 11:00:37 GMT -5
wash times hoya report www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20070114-014417-5541r.htm" Later in the opening half, freshman forward DaJuan Summers came from the back side and swatted away a shot attempt from Pittsburgh's Mike Cook. As he blocked the shot, Summers screamed, cursing in a taunting manner and earning a warning from referee Ed Corbett."
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,998
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 14, 2007 11:01:45 GMT -5
After watching the game again on DVR, several things stood out to me:
1. Hoyas transition defense was torched several times for layups off missed buckets - the guards need to do a better job rotating back.
2. Hibbert could have used the drop step or solid drive a couple more times instead of kicking it out.
3. Green should take his man down the lane off the dribble fromthe top of the key more - RDF is correct in pointing out that Hibbert's presence in the lane often prevents this by clogging up space.
4. Why not foul instead of letting Pitt run a minute and a half off the clock at the end of the game?
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Jan 14, 2007 11:10:54 GMT -5
All I can say is that I'm glad we get to play Nova and Pitt again. We can beat both of them (especially Nova), so I'm glad we'll get the opportunity for some payback.
Played much better tonight, what killed us was our guards could not stop their dribble penetration. That gave them a lot of open looks, and they were able to hit them consistently. Pitt looked like a very good team last night - right now they've got to be the cream of the crop in the Big East. Also, great to see Ewing stepping up - hope to see more of that.
Hate to be 1-2 in conference right now, but our schedule really lightens up for a bit so it's time for us to take advantage. I disagree with YB who says that this team just doesn't have it - we do, and I've seen improvement, so there's no reason to think that we won't be playing even better than this by February and March. Looks like we have taken a couple steps back since the ND game, but I still like what I see from this team. Keys are consistency, cutting down on TO's, a little rebounding improvement and firming up defensively.
|
|
mapei
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,089
|
Post by mapei on Jan 14, 2007 11:54:23 GMT -5
I came to the board expecting to post all these brilliant observations but y'all have done it already. Very good comments. I'm not upset at this loss because we played pretty well, and fluidly - none of the hesitant, deer-in-headlights stuff that I saw against Nova. We can legitimately feel crappy about losing to ODU and Nova at home, and we looked like crap against Nova to be charitable. But JT3 is right when he says that Pitt is a very, very good team. They played great, and sometimes you just have to accept that the other team is better than you on a given night, and maybe in general. PE2 is getting better and better. Not sure why Tyler doesn't get more PT instead of Rivers, although Rivers wasn't as bad as usual. DaJaun regressed a little and needs to grow up, but he still has oodles of potential. I haven't checked the minutes played but I didn't notice Macklin nearly as much as I would have expected. I know Pitt doesn't play this well all the time but, if they change that, don't be surprised to see them in the final four. When they're good, they are that good.
|
|
mapei
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,089
|
Post by mapei on Jan 14, 2007 11:58:23 GMT -5
p.s. As someone said upthread, we really do miss Brandon, Ashanti, and Darrel. The new guys are good but not as good YET as those guys were as seniors.
|
|
|
Post by chinatownfanclub on Jan 14, 2007 12:17:32 GMT -5
I was more disappointed than anything with the loss b/c we never really got the break we needed to win this game. Pitt is very good. I said in the pregame thread that Cook was the key to the game and he torched us. We really missed Edge playing D on him. I would have liked to see a little more of Crawford in this game. DaJuan just had a tough game. He got mixed up in some jawing back and forth w/ Cook and I think it got into his head.
The dribble drive just kills us b/c of our aggressiveness. Roy or Jeff wants to step up to block the shot, but it leaves their man open for the kick out or offensive rebound.
As I said before, this year is shaping up as one where we either blow out teams or lose close games. We lack that 2 guard or 3 guard to break people off for their own shot at the end of games. Oh well... I will still be watching and cheering us on and hoping that somebody steps up into that role.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Jan 14, 2007 12:31:58 GMT -5
4. Why not foul instead of letting Pitt run a minute and a half off the clock at the end of the game? I was yelling at Hoyas to foul at that mark, since I knew they were going to wind up fouling, anyway. Instead, they had the same result, but with lots of time lost. I was also a bit frustrated that they still did not appear in any kind of rush bringing the ball up court. They were down by six with less than two minutes, and were sort of casually heading up the court. I just don't get it. Oh well, that's just nitpicking on a good effort.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jan 14, 2007 12:33:49 GMT -5
RDF -- Roy brings nothing defensively? Ken Pomeroy just did an analysis that compared opponents' FG% with him in versus with him out -- and there was a huge difference. With Roy in, our opponents shot something in the 30%s...out, they were over 40%. Just because he doesn't block the shot doesn't mean he doesn't bring anything defensively. Great defense does not mean you have to be a great shot blocker, but what does Roy bring defensively? Your guards can't funnel their man towards him because opposing players aren't afraid to shoot it in his face. So that hurts when perimeter defenders aren't quick enough to stay in front of their man. He's a porous rebounder and it's due to his lack of explosion and anticipation, which are due to physical limitations--Gray is same way for Pitt--he doesn't alter the game one bit except for smiling like a psycho killer and clapping like a seal after he scores. The only 2 people on the planet who viewed this game as a "Battle of great bigs" were Gray and Hibbert. It was mediocre big man play from two hard working, nice kids. Pomeroy can use all of the stats he wants, this defense isn't good and it's been worse with Roy in the game--it was worse against Duke, Michigan, Nova, and Pitt. Those are the teams you have to compete with to do anything. A lot of missed shots in CBB are due to bad/mediocre players. To do statistical analysis at this level is silly--and I think it's over-valued at any level but is far more meaningful in Pro sports due to higher talent level and how tendencies decide games. If you look at last night's game, Hoyas cut the game to 6 points, have 3 consecutive good defensive stands with Roy out there--so that equates to lower FG percentage using the Pomeroy Guide to Defense-and Roy fails to get 2 rebounds, gives up possession and allows Pitt to run 70 seconds off the clock with less then 2 minutes to go and lead then goes from 6-8--GAME OVER. That's why stats don't matter to me as much as what I see happening in the game. Macklin is crude at times, but his athletic ability and quickness can make up for that--as we saw in Nova game--he out performed Jeff and Roy combined in far less time on court. Patrick Ewing JR gave Gray fits with his quickness and toughness-he was fronting, fighting and not backing down from Gray--the minute Gray got ball on Roy down low--it was 2 points with ease. Did that happen with JR on him? It's amazing how someone will see a game and still go with some guy who wrote something that factors in performances of Towson, Hartford, etc....which is useful if those are caliber of teams you are going to have to beat to compete for a Conference or National Championship--they are not and it doesn't take Ken Pomeroy's guide to tell us that.
|
|
sweetness
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 860
|
Post by sweetness on Jan 14, 2007 12:42:16 GMT -5
I agree with the notion that Pomeroy's data and conclusions are somewhat flawed because at this point they are based on results against inferior opponents.
also, funny stuff -- "Gray is same way for Pitt--he doesn't alter the game one bit except for smiling like a psycho killer and clapping like a seal after he scores."
You forgot about his tendency to beat his chest like King King.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jan 14, 2007 12:45:21 GMT -5
p.s. As someone said upthread, we really do miss Brandon, Ashanti, and Darrel. The new guys are good but not as good YET as those guys were as seniors. I think the team misses Cook and Owens far more then Bowman. Summers has been inconsistent at times--but that is to be expected of a FR--which is what Bowman was as a SR--and I'll take someone of Dajuan's talent level learning at this level playing like that-to me it's at least a washout with him and Bowman and I'd give Summers the edge--he did things against Nova the other night Brandon didn't do until his SR year--and even then it was usually after a hiatus of mediocre, uninspired play over a multiple game stretch. Cook and Owens on other hand--were perfect fits for the offense III likes to use--and they had to be respected. Cook could also get his own shot at any time and no Hoya guard does this--although I think Sapp shows potential to do so at times--when he drives and attacks rim--he just needs to develop a mid range game to use a pull up and he'll be tough to defend because he already shoots it from deep and drives to rim--so defensive player would be on his heels if Jessie ever pulled up on one of his drives. Defensively--all 3 players are missed. Bowman had length and would rebound. Owens same thing--and Darrel was strong in passing lanes/got some steals. Cook was quickest guard we had. Ball handling--losing those 3 is killing this team-that is where they are missed most in my opinion.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,520
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jan 14, 2007 12:58:52 GMT -5
3. Green should take his man down the lane off the dribble fromthe top of the key more - RDF is correct in pointing out that Hibbert's presence in the lane often prevents this by clogging up space. Roy has to be in the paint to clog up space. Hlaf the time he is out on the perimeter setting picks and during one time in the second half Green drove to the hoop successfully as Roy moved away from the basket. Point being Green has numerous opportunities to drive even when Roy is in the game because Roy is always on the move. The problem is that when Roy is in the game Green is being guarded not by a five but by a four. And since this is college hoops that four is probably more of a three. And Green still hasn't shown the ability or skill to consistently get past such a defender without turning the bal over. RDF, Gray has problems at times (like Roy) with small, quick, athletic guys fronting him. That does not make Ewing better than Roy defensively. It means Gray simply has some issues with quickness. But if Gray gets the ball cleanly and posts up Ewing or Vernon he would score on point blank hook shots as well. They can't stop him inside. Gray scored 3 points in the second half because in the second half his defenders (and that includes Roy) got aggressive and fronted him. With Roy on him for about the first 8 or so minutes in the second half he had a hard time getting a good look because Roy kept getting in front of him and denying the pass. Ewing did the same thing too. Gray's two quick hook shots in the first half were beautiful and decisive moves for a big man. Can't take anything away from him. And he got two quick buckets at the end of the first half because his teammates could penetrate, draw and dish it to him. But Roy has made players on Vanderbilt, Duke, Oral Roberts, Michigan, Notre Dame and I believe Oregon all have below average shooting percentages because of his presence. Give him some credit for that. To suggest it only occurred with the lightweights like Hartford is not being entirely fair. Again he is not a very good defender but he does indeed make it difficult for most opponents.
|
|
PopeJohn2
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Ultimate bailout is yet to come and unavoidable. Uncle Sam gonna pay your debt for you!
Posts: 1,465
|
Post by PopeJohn2 on Jan 14, 2007 13:28:48 GMT -5
anyone else feel like we have taken 10 steps back since the ND win? i dont. i think the past 2 games have exposed weaknesses that have been there all along. weaknesses that were there for the nd game but that our on-fire 3 point shooting masked quite well. that is why i say this team lives and dies from its ability to hit the long range jumper. we are lacking: 1. quick guards to break down a zone and dish to our big men 2. a truly dominating big man that can dribble penetrate 3. a key "go to" player either on the perimeter or in the post if we continue to play strong D, shoot well from outside and if a hot player emerges (maybe PEIII) we will do great. i am just glad that the team has demonstrated they can bounce back after the nova game as well as they did last nite.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jan 14, 2007 14:01:41 GMT -5
3. Green should take his man down the lane off the dribble fromthe top of the key more - RDF is correct in pointing out that Hibbert's presence in the lane often prevents this by clogging up space. Roy has to be in the paint to clog up space. Hlaf the time he is out on the perimeter setting picks and during one time in the second half Green drove to the hoop successfully as Roy moved away from the basket. Point being Green has numerous opportunities to drive even when Roy is in the game because Roy is always on the move. The problem is that when Roy is in the game Green is being guarded not by a five but by a four. And since this is college hoops that four is probably more of a three. And Green still hasn't shown the ability or skill to consistently get past such a defender without turning the bal over. RDF, Gray has problems at times (like Roy) with small, quick, athletic guys fronting him. That does not make Ewing better than Roy defensively. It means Gray simply has some issues with quickness. But if Gray gets the ball cleanly and posts up Ewing or Vernon he would score on point blank hook shots as well. They can't stop him inside. Gray scored 3 points in the second half because in the second half his defenders (and that includes Roy) got aggressive and fronted him. With Roy on him for about the first 8 or so minutes in the second half he had a hard time getting a good look because Roy kept getting in front of him and denying the pass. Ewing did the same thing too. Gray's two quick hook shots in the first half were beautiful and decisive moves for a big man. Can't take anything away from him. And he got two quick buckets at the end of the first half because his teammates could penetrate, draw and dish it to him. But Roy has made players on Vanderbilt, Duke, Oral Roberts, Michigan, Notre Dame and I believe Oregon all have below average shooting percentages because of his presence. Give him some credit for that. To suggest it only occurred with the lightweights like Hartford is not being entirely fair. Again he is not a very good defender but he does indeed make it difficult for most opponents. I never blamed Roy for Jeff's ineffectiveness--that is on Jeff as I mentioned in previous post--but if they are going to run the "Georgetown Offense" then it's not using Roy in his most effective manner and it's not allowing Jeff to do what he can. I'd change the approach a bit when both are out on floor together, but that's why III and Company are coaching and not me. When Roy sits, I'd run the "Georgetown" stuff, when both are in together, I'd run a basic offense with Roy playing on blocks. Defensively, I don't understand your point? If Ewing is making it tough for Gray, isn't that good? I realize that Gray would score at will if he had same looks he did against Roy, but the point was he didn't due to Ewing's quickness/aggressiveness and that is a plus to me. It's more important to me that the team be in best position to win then to have guys I like play. I'm NOT saying you are doing that, but I'm talking of my opinion that this particular year, it seems the style of play/team respond better when Roy's not on court. That's not a knock on Roy because I think he's a fine player, will be a Pro player and will be excellent next year with personnel around him that makes game easier for him. But you have to do what's best for team--and this particular year, I don't think it's playing III's system with Roy and Jeff on court. This team needs to tweak their offensive approach more. Defensively--slow footed guards, and lack of intimidating big, don't equate to a good man to man defense. I'd go to a zone primarily but so many coaches hate doing it--I see positives with GU being a bigger team with ability of guys like Green, PE JR, Summers, to close out on wings but the guards still give up penetration in zone due to following ball on weakside and not staying at home.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 14, 2007 14:06:13 GMT -5
RDF -- Roy brings nothing defensively? Ken Pomeroy just did an analysis that compared opponents' FG% with him in versus with him out -- and there was a huge difference. With Roy in, our opponents shot something in the 30%s...out, they were over 40%. Just because he doesn't block the shot doesn't mean he doesn't bring anything defensively. Great defense does not mean you have to be a great shot blocker, but what does Roy bring defensively? Your guards can't funnel their man towards him because opposing players aren't afraid to shoot it in his face. So that hurts when perimeter defenders aren't quick enough to stay in front of their man. He's a porous rebounder and it's due to his lack of explosion and anticipation, which are due to physical limitations--Gray is same way for Pitt--he doesn't alter the game one bit except for smiling like a psycho killer and clapping like a seal after he scores. The only 2 people on the planet who viewed this game as a "Battle of great bigs" were Gray and Hibbert. It was mediocre big man play from two hard working, nice kids. Pomeroy can use all of the stats he wants, this defense isn't good and it's been worse with Roy in the game--it was worse against Duke, Michigan, Nova, and Pitt. Those are the teams you have to compete with to do anything. A lot of missed shots in CBB are due to bad/mediocre players. To do statistical analysis at this level is silly--and I think it's over-valued at any level but is far more meaningful in Pro sports due to higher talent level and how tendencies decide games. If you look at last night's game, Hoyas cut the game to 6 points, have 3 consecutive good defensive stands with Roy out there--so that equates to lower FG percentage using the Pomeroy Guide to Defense-and Roy fails to get 2 rebounds, gives up possession and allows Pitt to run 70 seconds off the clock with less then 2 minutes to go and lead then goes from 6-8--GAME OVER. That's why stats don't matter to me as much as what I see happening in the game. Macklin is crude at times, but his athletic ability and quickness can make up for that--as we saw in Nova game--he out performed Jeff and Roy combined in far less time on court. Patrick Ewing JR gave Gray fits with his quickness and toughness-he was fronting, fighting and not backing down from Gray--the minute Gray got ball on Roy down low--it was 2 points with ease. Did that happen with JR on him? It's amazing how someone will see a game and still go with some guy who wrote something that factors in performances of Towson, Hartford, etc....which is useful if those are caliber of teams you are going to have to beat to compete for a Conference or National Championship--they are not and it doesn't take Ken Pomeroy's guide to tell us that. You have some points, but I'm not letting you get off that easy. One, from what I've seen, Roy does play good defense against good teams. He's not cherry-picking versus poor teams. Of course he and ALL the Hoyas are better against worse teams. I will say that I think Roy is very susceptible to bad matchups, and Pitt happens to be one of those. I do think Roy does alter shots even when he doesn't block them. I think his issue versus Pitt is that they are a tremendous passing team and his lateral movement is subpar. As for statistics, well, you can take or leave them. I prefer them to a three possession sample size. And I notice that I tend to fly off the handle a lot less than others who make snap judgements on small progressions. As for Macklin, you may be more athletic -- but he isn't helping with rebounding. He's been ineffective on the defensive boards. You can laud his ability all you want -- sometime he's going to have to actually grab the rebounds.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jan 14, 2007 14:20:51 GMT -5
I can only comment on games I've watched--and against Nova, I'd say Macklin outperformed Roy and Jeff. Against Duke--he didn't get to play and should've but that is in hindsight. Last night, he did a nice job fighting for position and got a rebound in his limited time--in a Half where Pitt shot the ball lights out--same with Roy--so I'm not going to bash Roy there, but I saw PE JR give Gray all kinds of problems, and Roy didn't. I have to call it like I see it. Michigan game--thought Macklin was solid too.
You could be right, but I've seen Macklin against 3 higher caliber opponents and he brought positives to game that deserved more time on court.
As for "flying off the handle"--you can call whatever you want, but you can't call it wrong or misguided. It's not "flying off the handle" if you bring up points that are proven to be correct. In the 4 games I've watched--against the caliber of opponents GU needs to beat, I'd say Macklin brought positives to game, and has some abilities that you can't teach. He's also a very good passer out of post--which I didn't expect. It's also not his fault that his greatest asset (running the floor) is limited due to how the team plays. I think Roy is limited due to the insistance on running a system and not trying to utilize the talent in best manner, but that's just my take from games I've watched. I don't care about games over Towson, Hartford, etc....you better win those and play well or you might as well make plans for NIT.
To minimize the 3 possession sequence is silly--that sequence meant a helluva lot more then something Ken Pomeroy made up. It killed any opportunity GU had to win the game--by taking it from a 2 to 3 possession game with under a Minute and with GU insisting on running a methodical offense, that is like being down 15.
The system GU uses doesn't fit this year's personnel/team with the lineup they play most of the time. It actually functions better with Roy or Jeff out of game and not with both of them on court. How many times have both players had strong games in same game? If you want to run the Georgetown offense, you have to have outside shooting threats that open up floor and punish people for doubling down, and in any offense, you need to draw/kick. GU rarely does this, doesn't have personnel to do this, and best player at doing this is Green--who can't when Roy is on the court due to the spacing/positioning of both players. It's why team made run with them off court against Nova, team made a run with one of them off court against Pitt, and team made a run with one of them off court against Michigan. Duke-both stunk in my opinion, so it didn't matter.
Systems don't win games---players do and if you don't adjust to your talent level or tweak what you do, then you won't win. Duke has slow people and insists on playing Man to Man--they will not win anything doing that. Georgetown has slow people and does same--they won't win anything either. Zone defense best suits this personnel and offensively, they need to play more traditional style of offense and get more possessions/shots off to try and take advantage of their size/offensive rebounding. Shooting 60% is great--but if you are limiting possessions and not getting enough shots off--and opposing team is shooting over 58% and has 10-12 more shot attempts, you are going to get beat.
Call it what you want, I prefer to call it judging the team based on what I've seen and not what I've read.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jan 14, 2007 14:23:50 GMT -5
RDF, you really should realize that looking at stats are even more important for a person that tends to be very biased and reactionary like yourself. I also fail to comprehend how you can say "I don't care what the stats are, we are worse on D with Roy out there." Mindboggling. I guess some people prefer their perception over reality.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jan 14, 2007 14:34:51 GMT -5
RDF, you really should realize that looking at stats are even more important for a person that tends to be very biased and reactionary like yourself. I also fail to comprehend how you can say "I don't care what the stats are, we are worse on D with Roy out there." Mindboggling. I guess some people prefer their perception over reality. Did you watch the same 4 games I did? Now I admittedly have only seen Hoyas 4 times this year--what game was GU better on defense with Roy in game? Last night did Roy do anything on defense to matter? When did GU make a run--with/without him in game? When did team cut the 15 point lead down to 6? Majority of it was with Ewing JR in game, correct? So why would I respect some statistical analysis over what I'm seeing in the games against major D-1 competition? I wouldn't go crazy over Summers and Macklin if they dropped 30 and 10 on Towson--that doesn't matter--it's what you do against Duke, Michigan, Nova, and Pitt that decides the fate of season. In 3 of those 4 games, I would say that this team was worse off defensively with Roy in game. If that changes over course of year, I'll give all of you who like Pomeroy's statistical analysis your due, but I can't comment on something I've not seen. Some of the people on this site are in love with players, not results. I want to see GU WIN--not have my favorite player get 30 minutes and put up big numbers. Winning is all that matters and in the games I've seen--GU would've increased their chances of winning by limiting some of Roy's minutes and using their roster more--but it's just from what I've seen based on how the personnel played and how they are being used in games I've watched.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,520
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jan 14, 2007 14:39:18 GMT -5
Defensively, I don't understand your point? If Ewing is making it tough for Gray, isn't that good? I realize that Gray would score at will if he had same looks he did against Roy, but the point was he didn't due to Ewing's quickness/aggressiveness and that is a plus to me. What I was attempting to point out was that in the second half Gray scoring went down because all the defenders, including Roy, in the first 8 minutes or so, fronted him and made it harder for him to catch the ball. To me it was more about the adjustment from the coaching staff rather than anything one player did. That’s how I saw it at least. I’ll look at the game again sometime soon. I still see that as a copout left over from last season. And I suppose last season there could have been more of an argument made. But this season I don't recall many times in which the Hoyas' fortune or play on the court truly improved once Roy went to the bench. I can't think of the games that were won once he went to the bench as everyone insisted happened last season against Pitt. I do recall that in games in which he gets enough looks and scores the team tends to do well and win. What I don't think is fair is that Jeff, with his turnovers and his unwillingness to take over, has been more of a detriment in games this year than even Roy. But when he has those off games III does not yank him in favor of Ewing or Macklin and fans here do not write "if Jeff had sat and Ewing or Summers had taken his place we would have done better, yada, yada". No that type of criticism is reserved only for Roy, even in games in which he plays well (like ODU) but the team still loses. Its tired. Just remember what III said himself before this season began. He commented that if his offensive scheme could not take advantage of a talented 7 footer who has passing skills the there is something wrong with the scheme. And yet despite this people on the board actually think taking out a 7'2 guy who shoots about 70% will help the team by allowing them to play a lineup in which all five guys either shoot the three all game or cut for backdoor baskets. I'm sorry but if it was me I would keep the big man on the floor as much as possible and demand that he takes at least ten shots per game. But that's just me. Did you see all the looks Wallace got from the three-point line last night? No, because he didn't get those looks. Pitt was able to play man and keep one big body on Hibbert rather than packing it in. Its when defenses pack it in that Jon and others tend to get those open looks. Without Hibbert on the floor the Hoyas would actually have to face more man pressure and against the top teams have these players shown they can routinely create shots for themselves without turning it over a dozen times in the process. Not only do they hold opponents to lower field goal percentages when Roy is o the floor, the Hoyas also shoot better percentages when Roy is out there because he allows some of his teammates to get open. Are there times I think the team can benefit without Roy on the floor? Absolutely. A change of pace within a game is good idea in some circumstances. Without Roy I'm sure the Hoyas could press much better. But here's the question; will III have them press even when Roy sits: the answer is almost always "no". I think I'm being objective. At the same time I can also say that there are times in which the team could perform better with Jeff or Jon or Jesse on the bench too. But over the course of the season I think overall the team is stronger when those players are on the court. Last night I didn't care whether or not Roy got back in the game in the second half, I simply wanted GU to win. In the first half I had no problem when he sat because I love seeing Macklin get some run. But Macklin and Ewing have not gotten to the point that they make the Hoyas a better squad when Roy sits. Especially not in the halfcourt game. Macklin does not even have a legitimate move and when he's out there, as quick as he is on defense, he allows the opponents to guard one less man because he is not yet a threat. If he at least came off the bench and rebounded like JYD there could be a stronger argument for him to cut into Roy's minutes but as of now he isn't bringing that time in and time out either. Maybe I’m crazy but in a few years I could actually envision people asking why the team didn’t take advantage of Hibbert’s size and offensive skill when the Hoyas are relying almost exclusively on perimeter players. This isn’t some RBB situation for me. RBB best fg % was I believe about 49%. Roy is inching up to 70% and most of those shots aren’t even coming off of dunks. I guess if he was shooting under 50% and turning over the ball too often I would be more inclined to agree. But he is so darn efficient on the offensive end I just can’t understand why people think the Hoyas function better when he’s off the court. Because frankly if it came down to counting on Jeff laying the five and driving to the lane all game or Roy playing the five and posting up his defender, I’d go with the latter. But at this point I’ll try anything just as long a sit produces wins. If that means less time for Roy then so be it.
|
|