TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 4, 2007 19:13:37 GMT -5
Giga-I was talking about the similarities between the teams Wright and AI found themselves on and how it effected the way they played, not arguing that Wright was the second coming of the Answer. I was doing so because all of a sudden people were claiming that Wright wasn't a good passer because St. Johns needed him to score a lot, just like people have argued that AI can't pass/doesn't want to pass because the Sixers needed him to score a lot. At no point did I argue that he would start next or say he should, but Wright has all the offensive skills necessary to be a major contributer next year.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Apr 4, 2007 19:15:16 GMT -5
Oh boy, here we go. The comment was made by me that he would be fifth in "handle-off" between Wallace, Sapp, Wright, Rivers, and Freeman. The retort (not sure if it was you or not) was that that the person agreed but he played point for Dematha so we'd be comfortable with him against the press.
Yeah that's cool but this isn't Dematha. He has the same type of big guy "I'm so wide and good I can get away with dribbling this far from my body" dribble that Summers had coming in. Note: this is where I remind everyone that Austin Freeman, like Summers, is ridiculously awesome. But that has to be controlled as does his passing for me to feel comfortable with him breaking any press.
The larger point is who cares? Summers didn't break the press, and I don't care if Austin does or not. But man, you say one completely neutral thing about an incoming recruit (I don't think him dribbling like a really great high school player is really a concern) and it's "What you talkin' about?"
Summers was incredibly important to this year's team, .5 assist/turnover ratio and all. You get great talent, you take the limited but forseeable bad with the incredibly good. Sweet for us. Let's keep these guys in perspective though. They will have a weakness or two. Freeman's are just way fewer than most players.
That said he's awesome! Let him have the ball and go to work! The kid can use his body to score and bomb away. The fact that I'll feel more comfortable on the floor with two experienced ballhandlers does not take away from that.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Apr 4, 2007 19:24:42 GMT -5
Well, he's a SG, so I don't think he'll be expected to break a press by himself. He has a better handle than most shooting guards, and you don't always need 2 PGs on the floor at the same time. It's a nice luxury, but if we can't break a press otherwise, something is wrong.
I've seen Freeman play 5-6 times, and heard a lot of other perspectives on him. A loose handle is not one of the criticisms I'd heard before, so I was curious why you were worried about that. His defense needs work - his handle is fine for a 2. Is it worse than that of the 4 PGs we have? Yea, of course. But he obviously has other advantages over them, and I see no reason to think he can't play SG from day 1.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 4, 2007 19:38:08 GMT -5
Oh boy, here we go. The comment was made by me that he would be fifth in "handle-off" between Wallace, Sapp, Wright, Rivers, and Freeman. The retort (not sure if it was you or not) was that that the person agreed but he played point for Dematha so we'd be comfortable with him against the press. Yeah that's cool but this isn't Dematha. He has the same type of big guy "I'm so wide and good I can get away with dribbling this far from my body" dribble that Summers had coming in. Note: this is where I remind everyone that Austin Freeman, like Summers, is ridiculously awesome. But that has to be controlled as does his passing for me to feel comfortable with him breaking any press. The larger point is who cares? Summers didn't break the press, and I don't care if Austin does or not. But man, you say one completely neutral thing about an incoming recruit (I don't think him dribbling like a really great high school player is really a concern) and it's "What you talkin' about?" I had simply never heard of anyone questioning Austin's handle as a SG. I can definitely see him coming in fifth in a "handle-off" but I see no reason why he'd struggle at the 2 or 3. Thank you for clarifying. The weakness I have heard, repeatedly on Austin, is that he is an indifferent defender in effort and possibly slow in lateral movement. Both of those can be fixed.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Apr 4, 2007 19:39:28 GMT -5
Well, he's a SG, so I don't think he'll be expected to break a press by himself. He has a better handle than most shooting guards, and you don't always need 2 PGs on the floor at the same time. It's a nice luxury, but if we can't break a press otherwise, something is wrong. I've seen Freeman play 5-6 times, and heard a lot of other perspectives on him. A loose handle is not one of the criticisms I'd heard before, so I was curious why you were worried about that. His defense needs work - his handle is fine for a 2. Is it worse than that of the 4 PGs we have? Yea, of course. But he obviously has other advantages over them, and I see no reason to think he can't play SG from day 1. Let me reiterate, I'm not "worried." You have 4 guards who are better handles and the kid is a big, strong scorer, why not put him at 3? And I have zero disagreement with him having advantages over the other guards of course. We just got done a year where every other game people were concerned about our guards against pressure and then we're going to put our fifth-best handle on the court at 2? Especially when we know he can easily play 3 with his skill set, why would we do that? We'll have our two starters, a more confident Rivers, and a natural point. I'm not arguing that Freeman isn't great. I'm just saying if you can easily put him in the game and not give up ballhandling at guard why would you? I think we agree more than we disagree. We want Freeman to get major minutes. I'm just saying it should be one slot over where he can do his thing and his thing is scoring in lots of different ways. Summers got those midrange baseline jumpers a lot this year. Freeman would eat defenses alive with those.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 4, 2007 19:44:56 GMT -5
Another thing I'll be interested in how much Thompson will look for the hot hand. It's no secret every offense works better when the outside shot is falling, but this year, when DaJuan was cold or Sapp was cold, there wasn't a bevy of options -- pretty much Ewing and no on else.
Now we will add several more options at the G and 3 spots -- maybe even more than Freeman and Wright if Wattad is ready to play BE ball or Rivers comes back with a better shot.
Will III rotate quicker to find a hot hand? Or stay with what he's got? Some people had alluded to him sometimes having random rotations but we have yet to really see that here.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Apr 4, 2007 19:46:30 GMT -5
I think Freeman will play some 3, but mainly because we will likely be guard heavy next year, and Austin is the only one who can really move over (Crawford too, but I don't see him getting many minutes).
I don't think it is at all fair to call Freeman's handle "loose," and I don't think it would be a problem to try to break the press with him in. If Green stayed, for example, I'd expect Austin to play mostly at the 2, at the expense of Sapp, Rivers, and Wright. But because of our positional makeup (Ewing and Summers will have to play the 3 and the 4), Austin will likely see a lot of time at SF.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Apr 4, 2007 20:23:27 GMT -5
I agree with Giga. Why not just let things with Jeff and Roy sort themselves out, let the new guys come in and let Coach sort out PT and roles? I think 3 has earned the right to make those choices without second guessing from us.
His history and pattern has been to not start froshes and to let them develop on the bench. It does take a while to learn the offense and defense, so why not let them do that? If we are still very talented with the returning group, and can win a title with them primarily, why mess with that?
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Apr 4, 2007 20:40:18 GMT -5
I agree with Giga. Why not just let things with Jeff and Roy sort themselves out, let the new guys come in and let Coach sort out PT and roles? I think 3 has earned the right to make those choices without second guessing from us. I disagree. I believe I should make the rotations, and furthermore I should make them now. The coach has not earned that right at all.
|
|
idhoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,177
|
Post by idhoya on Apr 4, 2007 20:55:22 GMT -5
Clearly Illmatic was better than any of X-Clan's albums. Almost up there with PE's "It takes a nation of Millions..." or EPMD's "Strictly Business or EB & Rakim's "Paid in Full".
|
|
mapei
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,089
|
Post by mapei on Apr 4, 2007 21:20:36 GMT -5
Question: why the recruiting emphasis on guards? It appears that our only problem at the 1 and 2 is how to find minutes for everybody, and which of our fabulous guards should start. But from there it starts getting really thin - Summers at the 3, Ewing at the 3 or 4, and Macklin at the 5, if Jeff and Roy leave. I guess Freeman could sub at the 3 sometimes, maybe DaJuan could move up to 4 in a pinch, but the options aren't real great if our stars leave. Does anyone besides me see this as an issue? It seems a little odd to me that we're bringing 3 guards in when that is where the team was already deep.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Apr 4, 2007 21:35:18 GMT -5
Question: why the recruiting emphasis on guards? It appears that our only problem at the 1 and 2 is how to find minutes for everybody, and which of our fabulous guards should start. But from there it starts getting really thin - Summers at the 3, Ewing at the 3 or 4, and Macklin at the 5, if Jeff and Roy leave. I guess Freeman could sub at the 3 sometimes, maybe DaJuan could move up to 4 in a pinch, but the options aren't real great if our stars leave. Does anyone besides me see this as an issue? It seems a little odd to me that we're bringing 3 guards in when that is where the team was already deep. It tells me JTIII expected Roy back at the beginning of the season. We'll see if that holds true. If it does, he's played it perfectly. If not, stuff happens.
|
|
idhoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,177
|
Post by idhoya on Apr 4, 2007 21:38:02 GMT -5
III doesn't seem like the kind of guy that will get caught empty handed. I have a feeling both will be back.
|
|
|
Post by 1984alloveragain on Apr 4, 2007 21:56:58 GMT -5
I agree id. People are uptight because the guys have been coy about their desires and plans, but --- THEY HAVE TO BE. They want to go out to the Pre-Draft scrimmages and have their games evaluated by the scouts who can give them really clear ideas of where they are now; where they might be next year; and what they bring to the table for a pro-team, and the areas in their game they need to work on to improve (their draft ranking and actual pro careers). If they announce now that they are coming back to complete what they started (I think we all hope they do, but love them regardless), then the scouts won't be as willing to put in so much time and effort to evaluate them for the next level, and they won't benefit from that opportunity as much (IMHO). It seems they've tried to say as much as they can to this point (to let the HOYA nation know they want (and will) return), but they will benefit very much in the long run if they actually do not announce this until after the pre-draft get-together (in Chicago?). Just my .02 - hope I'm right.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 5, 2007 7:31:09 GMT -5
His history and pattern has been to not start froshes and to let them develop on the bench. He's started Roy, Jeff, Jon and Summers as frosh.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Apr 5, 2007 8:32:22 GMT -5
Go back to his PU days- starting froshes is irregular for III, he even said as much. Jeff, Jon, and sometimes Roy started bc we had no other options on that team.
I thinK III recruited these guys bc he always just tries to get the best talent out there- he has said that from the getgo.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 5, 2007 10:26:54 GMT -5
Maybe working in the frosh will depend on what III sees as our chances of being the NCAA champs. For instance, if Jeff and Roy come back or if Roy only comes back, stick with the current lineup (except for replacing Jeff) and go for the championship. If Jeff and Roy both leave, our chances are slim that we're in the race for championship and, in that case, let's let the frosh start (along with Vern) and build for the future.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Apr 5, 2007 14:28:48 GMT -5
I think it matters very little who we start next year. I trust coach to find the 5 he feels comfortable with, but i can also see us subbing in a fashion we saw UNC do this year. We're going to have too much talent not to. The days of players racking up 30-40 minutes are over. Assuming everyone comes back i fully expect Our current starting 5 austin, chirs, pat, macklin to all get signifigant playing time. I think the biggest debate will be who gets the most playing time out of wattad, rivers, and tyler. that's where the fight will be. Everyone else will get their minutes.
|
|
mit0313
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 216
|
Post by mit0313 on Apr 5, 2007 22:16:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Apr 5, 2007 22:29:20 GMT -5
Gratz to our future Hoyas!!
Imagine our "press breaking" lineup -> Wright, Rivers, Ewing, Jeff, Roy
|
|