•  Rhode Island at home

That's it. That's all I see. I know teams can get hot for one night against anybody, but I haven't seen it ever from this team. They may be slightly better than some of the teams left, but those are road games so they are losses. I now believe there are three rules for losses for the rest of the season:

1. Road game = loss
2. Opponent is better team = loss
3. Opponent is at least equal in talent = loss

That leaves very little wiggle room. If this team gets to double-digit wins on the season it will be a miracle. I'd say "Oh how the mighty have fallen", but you'd have to be mighty in the first place in order for that statement to be accurate. I'm beginning to think the havoc Penders let loose on the program is not dissimilar to what Hobbs did, albeit in an entirely different manner (don't spin that statement MV).

I'm thinking that we end up with another Harold Rhyne game somewhere.

What you are saying, Herve, is that there is no corner for this team to turn, and we am what we am and thats all that we am.  But not even to see Fordham as a foreseeable chance at a win?  We should be able to beat Fordham just by our put on GW jerseys and their putting on Fordham jerseys, even with their couple of good wins (Ga Tech and Harvard) this season.

Rhyne, Knorr, Johnson, Barnett, Baltimore...just a few names from the far distant past. Always good to be reminded. Thanks DM

Posters on this board want to give ML a chance and throw the players on the team at the moment under the bus by suggesting that it is the skill of the players that is leading to the losses.

I hate to always rehash the past, but this GW team won 10 A-10 games last year and won 17 overall games. There are potentially two or three all conference players on this team at the moment, (Taylor, Smith, Kromah). One of the potentially deadliest shooters in the conference in Mikic.  With the exception of Kromah, who was injured, each of these players showcased their talents at many points last season.

That raises the question of what has the changed from last year to this year. The easy answer is the coaching staff. Many posters would disagree, but I believe we would have at least 2 or 3 more wins under KH at this point, than we do this year.

The sign of a good coach is to know how to maximize the strengths of the players he has. ML has not done that to this point. Instead, he has highlighted the weaknesses of his players, leading to many losses. Although the Wheel was not the most popular offense, it definitely showcased the driving and cutting abilities of our players. It showcased the spot-up shooting ability of our shooters like Mikic.

Our team has not regressed. The coaches have not catered to our players. It is unfortunate that the coaching staff would tank the seasons of Ware, Taylor, and Edwards because of their stubborness to cater to the strength of the team.

Unless the A-10 is back up to a level we haven't seen since Camby and those guys were playing, we have to be able to win some games if Taylor, Kromah, and Mikic remember how to shoot in the same game.  Of course it's looking like that may never happen again.  It's a shame that Pellom has become a pretty consistent double-digit scorer and has a field goal percentage of 68%, and we're still getting drubbed. 

?Quick? Throw under the bus? Babble.Who the eff cares, not that you are crazy, but maybe you are. You have the wisdom of Solomon. I say that Lonergan has been really nice to the guys on the team and that's fine. Dude, welcome to the real world.

Actually, this year's team has regressed from last year.

Smith has been injured, and slow to recover.

Last year's (slight) offensive threat in the middle is gone

TT has not played as well overall as he did last year

Mikic has regressed by not really improving

That's a downturn in production, really, at 4 starting positions.

And still, there is very little in the way of depth on the bench.

ps: But none of that regression, that I can see,  is attributible to coaching, this year's coaching or last year's.

plus, Lasan's recovery is incomplete.

Is it conceivable that the downturn in production is due to the change in systems. Maybe the Flex offense isnt something suited for the players on this team. KH recruited athletes who wanted to played in a fast-paced, less structured offensive system. ML, if he is a great Xs and Os guy, should realize that and adapt his system to meet the needs of the core of the team. Assuming no one transfers, there will still be 5 of KH's recruits next year, so the adaptation is needed.

And the words "thrown under the bus" is a correct description of what has happened? How can the same group of players go from being "NCAA or NIT team" in April pre-Hobbs firing, to a team that will be horrible for 2-3 more years before success? That makes no logical sense.

 There are so many points which you make that I am disagreement with, Reason, that I would not even know where to begin.  However, I will make 2 points...first is the A-10 is much improved over last year.  Without even looking at the top of the conference from last year, teams like St. Joes, St. Louis, Fordham, Charlotte, UMass and even Lasalle have gotten better.  In fact, the only regression I am seeing so far is URI and maybe Richmond, but Richmond is still better than we are.  But my main contention is that you need to take off your rose colored classes and see these players as how they are on a game to game basis, not what they may have given brief glimpses of.  We were hopeful about Kromah because of his solid freshman year...we were hopeful about Smith because on occasion he can take over a game...we were hoepful about Mikic because he can get hot and hit 2-3 three point shots in a row.  But what none of these player have ever done is shown that they are consistent, day to day, solid, 2 way players.  Ironically, of the 3 I just mentioned, Mikic seems to have advanced his game the most, as he can now create a little more than he was able to last year, and as someone else pointed out, he does get to the line occasionally.  But his and Smith's defense still remains woeful, and as bad as our offense has been, in my opinion we are losing our games on defense (take a look at opposing shooting percentages some time).  We cannot stop anyone.  As for Taylor, his senior year has to be a major disappointment.  There is an old basketball saying to the effect that it is very easy to overrate a high scorer on a bad team.   This may have been the case with Tony.  He is also getting beat regularly on defense.  Most disappointing, he is not running the offense the way an all conference point guard is expected to do.  Our assist numbers are awful, and without having checked stats, I would guess that we have the highest percentage of unassisted baskets of any team in the conference, which is indicative of one on one (read that selfish) play as opposed to team play.  As a result, our shooting percentages are very low, which is compounded by the fact that our front line is so weak that we don't get rebounds, second chance points, or for that matter easy baskets because, as ML pointed out, we do not have a true, back to the basket post player.  Jabari Edwards as center?  c'mon, he is a nice role player at best.  Kopriva and Pellom as your strong forwards?  Pellom has been a very pleasant surprise on offense, clearly the most improved player on the team in my opinion, but is he really going to muscle anyone on defense, or effectively block out?  It is not the coaching, it is the skill level of the players.  I will grant you that the team is not playing as well this year as they did last year, and that there has been a change of coach.;  But please don't tell us that these are good basketball players that are not playing up to their potential because of the new coach.  Now excuse me while I go bag some leafs.

I want to pose a question. Let's say we were winning games and blowing teams out. Would you then credit the players or would you say its because of ML?

Or another question: When players regress, is that the players fault or the coach's fault for not pushing the players to get better.

Although it is ML's first season, he should not get a free pass. He has failed to show that it was necessary to fire Hobbs in April. Instead, I'm pretty sure the school administration is thinking, "well if we were going to lose again this season, we might as well have kept KH so we wouldnt have to pay two coaches"

At this point in the season, I do not need see an upgrade in coaches at all.

 VOR - you gloss over one of the bigger problems in the whole coach switch -  they freaking waited until the end of April - almost May to make the decision to fire KH and another two weeks to announce ML's hiring (after graduation and campus departures, passing on recruits, not being able to participate in end of season exit interviews with players etc. - basically the school screwed the pooch on this one and I  cannot fault the players or ML for this result).  What ever happened to "tone at the top" - Knapp, Chernak and the AD are the ones you should be looking towards.  

At the college level, playing style is crucial in determining whether a player chooses to go to a particular school. That being said,  you can not place blame on the players not to adapt. Do you think any of these players would have come to GW if ML or KH had run the flex offense. Probably not because they know there own strengths and weaknesses.

Coaches can only do so much. I do agree with that statement. But players can also only do so much. Its the coach's job to position the team to perform at a high level. That is not being done. Lazyiness on defense falls on the players, but defensive and offensive playcalling falls on the coaching staff.

"ML, if he is a great Xs and Os guy, should realize that and adapt his system to meet the needs of the core of the team. "

This has been SO obvious to many of us. If the players you have do not match "your system", then for at least this year , try to match your system to what ever stengths the team has. Next year, do your thing, not now. Sorry, I will be at the games and hope for better days, but really......

If we lose out, can we at least get a draft pick or something?  Maybe we can get Andrew Luck?

I watched Fordham lose to Xavier by 7 yesterday. Sorry LSF but we're not beating Fordham in our current state.

I'll say it again - Hobbs really did an amazing job coaching this crew last year to the record they had.

 Does Hobbs coach this team to 10-6 against the A-10 once again?    Looks like for the next 10 months (until next November), we will be playing the blame game.  And eventually we will agree that there is enough blame to go around.

BTW, and not to change the subject but did anyone see Coach Hobbs last night on the bench for UConn in their loss to Rutgers? Looks like he is one of the three assistants Calhoun confers with (Miller and Blaney being the others) and he seemed to be doing a lot of coaching from the bench everytime the camera was on the UConn bench. Good for Karl.

 LSF with your constant railing against the players, you have two choices: Admit HObbs did a very good job last year or come off your claim that the players aren't good. We were tied for 4th in the A10 last year. That is a very good year for anybody not named Xavier or Temple. I don't care about the relative weakness of the A10. I'll tell you one thing, we went down to the wire with a Richmond team that made the sweet 16 twice. Can you see this years team doing that with a Sweet 16 team? How about with a tournament team period?

There is plenty of blame to go around. Many of the players either are not skilled enough or didn't work hard enough on their games in the offseason. Their defieciences get exposed against good competition and not playing hard is inexcusable. At the same time, it's not crazy to seriously doubt Lonergan as a motivator. Tony Taylor was a 2nd team all A10 guard last year, preseason 1st team this year, and now he looks like he doesn't want to be on the court. He's not a bad kid, never been in trouble, this is a coach who's not reaching his players for whatever reason.

- When you look at the equation for a winning season you have players and coaches. One group of players won 17 games last year and 16 the year before. The other has never won at a higher level than the America East. I don't think fans who criticize the coach should be ostracized. We may not win more than 8 games this year. That is pathetic for any year. Especially so when you have a 1st team preseason all A10 guard on your team! 

VOR -- I thought you gave a reasonable take on the Hobbs-loyalist spin.... until I got to the part where you said you are "pretty sure" the administration regrets firing Hobbs since we're losing this year.  That is remarkably dumb, and decidedly not the voice of reason.  The move was made for the long term.  If you don't know that, you aren't even close to as reasonable as you think.

Allow me, though, to give you the voice of reason on the other side of the debate: 

1)  For the last few years, the biggest problem with our offense was the failure to get open shots. We were often reduced to driving 1-on-4.  This year, we are actually getting more open shots.  The players just aren't making them. And I'm not talking about unmakable shots (like threes for Pellom or jumpers for Jabari) , I'm talking about the open 17 footers Taylor used to rarely missed, open threes for Kromah and Mikic, open 15 footers for Kromah, inside shots for Dwayne.

2) Stop pointing to the overall win total (17) since 7 of those were built on a joke of an OOC.  In fact, we were just as bad -- or worse -- last year in the OOC than we were this year.  We lost to the likes of BU, Hampton, UNC-Wilmington and freakin' Navy. Weren't even that close in most of those. We also barely squeaked by against the likes of Towson and Holy Cross.

3) So while you want to say it's the same team that won 10 A-10 games last year, I'd counter with that it's also the same team that got smacked by Navy and the like.

4) Your contention, I believe, boils down to the fact that the real GW team was the one that won 10 A-10 games, and that we should simply ignore the OOC.  Here's why I think the 10 A-10 wins was, in hindsight, not more representative: 

        A) The A-10 was very weak last year.   We only beat 2 teams with winning records last year all season, and both of those teams were playing BY FAR their worst ball of the season when we played them. This year, we only have 2 more games against teams likely to have a losing record (URI and Fordham).  Huge difference. 

        B)  Tony Taylor got unusually hot in A-10 play last year.  In our OOC losses last year (BU, Hampton, Navy, UNC-W, GMU, UAB, Harvard) Taylor averaged 10.1 ppg (and it would be under 10 if you took out the 18 in the opener vs. BU).   In A-10 play, he averaged 16.9 ppg (and in the wins he averaged 18.7 ppg).  Even worse:  In our A-10 losses last year, Taylor shot just 33% from the field.   In our last 8 games, Taylor is shooting 30.3% from the field.   That's a HUGE difference for our team. Basically, the pattern is clear - when Taylor is red-hot, he can carry us for a while, when he is ice cold we can lose to anyone.  Sure, we occasionally win a game when he's cold or lose when he's hot, but the pattern extends to last year and beyond.  I know you'd say he is shooting this year like he did in our losses last year because of coaching, but I'd say he shot like this a lot last year under Hobbs.  We had all hoped that Taylor had turned the corner in A-10 play last year, but he's getting plenty of open shots this year and he's just not hitting htem.

     C) We won a lot of close games in A-10 play over mediocre to bad teams last yer. For this, I give Hobbs lots of credit.  He did somehow manage to win the close wins agaisnt the likes of UMASS and Charlotte last year (and even Dayton late in the season).  But, again, i think this is more a function of Taylor getting on a hot streak than  Hobbs' system being particularly well-suited to the players.

    D) Last year, we did have a little bit of a post threat in Katuka. Sure, he was inconsistent, but he scored in double figures around 15 times last year and he forced defenses to respect us inside this year.

       E) Dwayne Smith was another huge factor last year. This year, he's been pretty much a non-factor until the last two games (when he's still been off last year's pace).  Not the coach's fault - that's injury. Between Katuka and Smith, that was our inside game last year.

       F) Mikic has slumped shooting.  I don't blame it on Lonergan. It's not unusual for players to shoot well as freshman and then not as a sophmore.  If you actually watch the games, you'll say that Mikic is getting plenty of wide open shots.

BOTTOM LINE on the "10 win" argument -- last year's A-10 record was built on beating unusually weak teams, a hot streak from Tony, the presence of two inside players we don't have this year, and some mental toughness in close games we haven't shown this year. Most of those are not worth blaming the coach over.

5) You talk about how we have "potentially' three all-league players on this team so the coach should win.  That's possibly true, but let's examine the facts:   Smith has been hurt and a shadow of his former self.  Not the coach's fault.  Kromah missed a year to injury and has lost his shooting touch. I still believe it will come back, but given how many open looks he is getting, it's not the coach's fault the kid is getting open shots and still shooting just 33%.  Taylor has reverted to the good, but inconstistent player of his first two 1/2 years. He's getting open shots that he's not hitting. Not the coach's fault.  So, sure, we have 3 potential all-league players, but two of them have lost thier form almost certainly due to injury, and one was unable to continue the surprising hot streak of the 2nd half of last year. Boo hoo.

6) You say the easy answer of what has changed from last year to this year is the coaching staff. I'd say the easy answer is that guys are missing shots they hit in the 2nd half last year.  I'd also say what's changed is that the Hobbs loyalists have expunged the first half of last year from their memory (as if it didn't count) in much the same way Republican Primary candidate try to ignore the Bush years, as if they didn't happen.

7)  You say we'd have 2-3 more wins under Hobbs. Perhaps (though I doubt Hobbs would be winning with no post scoring, a shooting guard shooting 33% and a star PG shooting 30% over his last 8 games). But even if you are right, that would only make us a .500 and 3 more wins would make us roughly 163rd in the RPI.  That's hardly a result worth sacrificing the long term promise that ML offers.

8) You say the sing of a good coach is to maximize the strenghths of the players he has.  I think you are ignoring the fact that Hobbs, too, went with his system his first two years, even though the losses piled up.  it paid off for him when he landed a couple good reecruiting classes, and either you weren't here or didn't criticize Hobbs then for not adapting to his talent.  ML should be afforded the same opportunity to build his program that Hobbs was.

9) The worst thing in your initial post is the comment about the wheel showcasing our players driving and cutting ability.  First, no one really cut to the basket (not the way they do under ML, that's for sure). Second, if it showcased our talent so well,why was our offense so bad?    

Here's another stat for you:  over Hobbs' last 4 years, we failed to crack the top half of Division 1 teams in offensive efficiency .  Mind you, there are 345 D1 teams -- and we haven't been able to finish in the top 173.  You are really going to say the wheel fit our team well when we were in the bottom half of all team, including every low major in the country? 

10)  Have you actually watched the last couple of games?  The coaches have moved away from their preferred offense. They are spreading the floor and letting the team drive, basically what you are arguing.  Now I won't criticize the poor shooting vs. SLU -- that is a great defensive team -- but the results haven't been much different.  If they guys can't hit the open shots, then it doesn't matter whether we run the wheel, the flex, the triangle, or the Penders Chuck n' Crash offense.

11) Lastly, when you talk about their "stubborness," again, it shows that you aren't watching.  I mean, the one year when Hobbs adapted - the 3rd NCAA year - people remember Hobbs adapting to the players by slowing it down and grinding it down, but people forget he resisted calls to do that  until mid-February.  This coaching staff has beat Hobbs on the adapting by about 6 weeks.  Now it's up to the players to make their damn shots.

The bottom line is that the players need to relax.  This coaching staff will put them in position to get plenty of open shots if they'll just listen to what the coaches are telling them.  But if they can't hit those shots, don't blame the coaches.  Just hit the damn shots.

 DEA, your point about Richmond is a good one but i disagree. we LOST those games. this year's teams could easily lose twice to a Sweet 16 team. how's Kromah doing he was the great hope for Hobbs, who so earned that shot at an 11th season.

how many times Hobbs get to AC the last few years? it's very apparent to all that you are over KH. har, har, hardy har har. where's Hobbs coaching this year he's such a great catch? the university of.......

Well put, Free.   One of my key contentions being that you take Katuka and Smith off of last years team and don't really add anyone, plus increase the strength of the OOC schedule and add to that the improved A-10 schedule, and you get what you are seeing.    The team ML iniherited (considering injuries to Smith and Kromah) were essentially a bunch of role players plus Tony Taylor.  Forget everything else and just look at them play.  Those are wide opened shots that are being missed.  The front court is non existent.  The shooting guards can't shoot.   If after 2-3 years of ML recruits we are only showing marginal improvement, I will blame the coaching staff.  This first year, I will continue to blame the players and the coach who needed to travel all over the country (or world) to bring us the likes of Ware, Davis, Albritton, Alexander, Warren, Bynes, Fitzgerald, Opuku, Guest, etc.

LSF, don't crack on David.  He plays .5 minutes a game.  He was rated above a 90.  Let's see what he's got before we knock him.

I completely agree with all others except for Ware and Bynes.

You don't agree what about Ware and Bynes? 

Obviously they are better than the other guys on the list, but I think LSF's point was that there's no reason to travel as far as Florida and California to get serviceable, but limited role players like them.

Ware does a lot of good things on the court. But he rarely makes a basket beyond 3 feet and has a very hard time finishing when big guys are around the basket.  It just seems strange that GW would spend money to travel to California to recruit a guy with his skills, when guys with similar skills are so prevelant around DC.

Likewise, Hobbs probably locked onto Bynes because he is fast, has long arms, and can jump high when in full run.  That athleticism allows him to be a decent defender, though a decidedly un-physical one.  But he also can't dribble against pressure and can't shoot (for a 6'3" guard; rarely making one unless wide open) and is not particularly good at finishing on the break or in traffic because he's so unphysical.  Clearly, Hobbs was looking more at the athleticism than the skill level, but I think LSF's point is why travel to Florida to find an athletic, but unskilled player (unskilled for an upper level A-10 team) when there are plenty of athletic guys like that closer to home. 

I fully understand travelling to Illinois to land a Mike Hall or Indiana to land a Dirkk Surles. I also understand travelling to land international players with rare potential who might be attracted to DC (like going to Florida to land Katuka, who had a lot of potential).   But for every major contributor we've travelled for  it seems like there are 3 or 4 guys who never turn out to be more than extremely limited role players or worse. 

Also remember, one of the beauties of ML's philosophy of largely focusing on DC players is that he can see them more often and evaluate them better.  If you think about it, not too many of our recuriting busts have come from the DMV -- we've had sucessses like Shawnta, Mike King, Kwame Evans, Vaughn Jones, Chris Monroe, Lasan Kromah, even Val Brown.   How many local busts can you think of in the last 20 years?  Ricky Lucas didn't live up to the top 100 hype, but he was at least as good as (probably better than) Ware and Bynes. What busts am I forgetting who were local? 

I don't have a problem widening the recruiting net from NY to NC, but for the most part, I think we'll have much better luck with guys from DC and international kids than we will travelling to CA and FL to land limited role players.

There are a number of debates going on but I'm going to provide my opinion on the ones that I believe are significant.  Comparing last year's record to this year's is nonsense.  Who cares?  Both teams could be considered disappointing although last year's team by this time last year put together a pair of A10 wins and was showing some signs of life, unlike this year's team.  Everytime anyone brings up 10 A10 wins, FQ is offended because he feels you are not including last year's OOC which was dreadful.  OK, so maybe 14 wins this year equals 17 from last year.  Or 13 wins.  Or 15 wins.  It doesn't matter.  In my mind, there are only two things that really matter:

1) Is Lonergan and staff coaching this team the best way possible?  This means, are they putting the team in a position to succeed?  Are they maximizing strengths while attempting to minimize weaknesses?  Anyone who has played sports in virtually any level will agree that success or failure is never 100% coaching or 100% talent or players.  It is always some combination and this is no different here.  The fact is that we are seeing less and less of the flex which is to ML's credit.  For whatever the reason, motivation, talent, smarts, etc., this group isn't performing well in this offense.  Time to try new things and the coaching staff is trying.  Now, FQ brings up my example, which was simply an example, of the 2006-07 season when KH successfully changed his strategy in February meaning Lonergan is about 6 weeks ahead of him.  How ridiculous is this?  First, unless you were around this team at practices every day, none of us have any idea what types of changes KH utilized to adapt to his given teams.  FQ is the same poster who claims that it's refreshing that Lonergan and staff recognize our problems because he (FQ) had the feeling that the prior regime never knew how to handle such problems.  My god, could you possibly be any more insulting?  What an incompetent boob Hobbs must have been to have taken teams to four consecutive postseason tournaments.  Yes Seneca, I saw him on the bench against Rutgers.  How ironic that the defending national champions would be interested in his input.  After all, he really didn't have a clue for the past 10 years.  Sorry to digress but to close this out, I give Lonergan props for trying some new things.

2) How Lonergan represents this team.  Believe it or not, there is a happy medium between giving standard cookie-cutter answers to the press and being so brutally honest that you are shredding the confidence of the team in the process.  His latest remark, how some of the current players have no idea how to play defense, is not only inexcusable but is also counter-productive.  What does he stand to gain by making such a comment short of conveying a "it's not me, it's them" theme so that all of us are made to believe that none of this is his fault?  Such comments, if they have to be made at all, can easily be said in private.  I know some of you have a problem with the phrase "throwing someone under the bus", and to his credit, he did not name names.  Nevertheless, he's really not helping anyone, least of all himself, by making such public statements.

I think part of the beef that Voice of Reason and the pro-Hobbs contingency have is that they were under the delusion that in April GW was a "NCAA or NIT" team, as VOR contends.  Never the case and not really even close.  In order to get a NCAA bid, a mid-major team really has to be in the RPI 35-50 range.  Last year GW was RPI 145, or about 100 off the mark.  In the last 4 years, GW's never even been close to anything resembling an NCAA team or even close to beeing an NIT team with the NIT's new selection criteria in place.  Other than some overly optimistic speculation on this board, I do not recall any objectiive analysis that had GW as an NCAA contender comming into this season.  Copes would not have been the difference and a return of a good but not great (didn't make A10 1-3rd team his first year) from a year long injury player like Kromah wouldn't have made the difference either.   

Sure GW could have had a couple more wins at this point but still would not have been anything close to a NCAA or really a NIT team this season.  That's the reason to make the change from Hobbs to Lonergan a year early.  If GW was going to have to rebuild (and it clearly was going to), there's no reason not to get that process started earlier than later.  Waiting until next season would have simply delayed that process.  GW now has the coaching staff in place, good new recuits and transfers already signed, is (hopefully) learning Lonergan's system and has taken the first step forward to going where Lonergan and Nero want them to arrive. 
 

I am still confused at how many of the posters have lost faith in the players on this squad. That is the last thing that needs to happen for this team. Believe it or not, I can assure you that players read this blog. So just as ML's comments about their skills effect their psyche, your comments also effect their psyche.

I will no longer hide the fact that I am a KH supporter, but I am more-so a GW supporter. Therefore, no matter who is the coach, I want to see the best for GW basketball program.

That being said, I truly believe that we have one of the more talented rosters in the A-10. If you do a player to player comparison, other than at the 5 position, we are competitive at every position.

If the A-10 is a weaker conference than last year, then theoretically, we should be dominating since we did not have a significant roster change. I do remind you that, because of Edwards' last season surge, most people were calling for him to start over Katuka....

If the A-10 is said to be stronger this year, then shouldnt we still be at the top, since our roster didnt significantly change? That would make the most since.

KH had his team poised for success this year and I truly believe that GW dropped the ball by firing Hobbs. Its no coincidence that Taylor thrived under KH because KH was a point guard himself. KH is responsible for players such as Richard Hamilton and Ray Allen....What NBA players can Lonergan claim as his products?...

I will confess to being one of the believers that we would at least get an NIT bid this year.  We did finish 10-6 in conference last year, had a highly touted freshman class of Copes and the 2 Davis', and was looking at the return of Kromah.  Of course, much of my optimism was dilusional.  Copes left with Hobbs, Trey Davis made at best a lateral transfer to UMass (leading one to believe that he was not a top flight recuritI),  and Jonathan Davis has shown not ready for prime time...or any time (More on Jonathan in a bit).  Then, Smith had the concussion issues, and Kromah lost his shooting eye in the off season.  I further over-estimated the team by letting myself believe that Jabari Edwards, your proto-typical one trick pony (that trick being shot blocking) would be a defensive demon that would make up for his well documented offensive deficiencies.  Well, he is neither an offensive or defensive demon, but rather a liability on both ends of the court who's minutes drop with each game.

So, where do we go from here?  No I don't want to be embarassed by not finishing in the top 12 for the 3rd time in 5 years, however at best, we may be one and done in a road loss in the A-10 tournament.  So, I may be  ready to declare the rest of the season an exhibition/learning type season.  I would not deprive Tony or Aaron their minutes...they earned it.  But lets work on next year, even if it continues to cost us this year.  Which means stick with the new system, so the returnees can learn and progress, even if we may win more games with a return to the old system.  Which leads me to return to Davis.   The easy answer is to suggest a change of venue for him, however I do not know whether the coach feels that he will best progress through hard work in practice and a seat at the end of the bench during game times, or if he sees Davis as gone already and doesn't want to waste minutes on him.  Personally, I think he has not shown anything in very limited minutes, but I would still like to see him on the court  some before saying goodbye, if that is what is to happen.  On the other hand, we are only 2 (road) games into the conference season, so it probably is too early to turn this into exhibitions for next year, so I understand the coach tinkering with the system and putting what he believes to be the best 5 onto the court, however if comes game 9 and we are sitting on 1-7, then I may think otherwise.

Lonergan's brutally honest reviews of his team's play was evident at Vermont as well.  We knew that going into the hire.  Some at UVM didn't like it either but that's ML's way.  The players can either learn to accept the very targeted criticisms on specific aspects of their play ML believes needs improvement and work on thier games or they can eventually leave. It will be up to them and I have no doubt some will take the 2nd route. But ML's probably also looking to build a team that's more mentally tough than this one demonstrates, even if that pisses some off in the process.  He also seems to be toughest on his most talented players, the ones he expects more from (Kromah, Mikic) as opposed to the Guest/Bynes/Davis lesser players of the team.   

One thing in particular I like about ML: the fact that he was willing to take a couple of steps backwards before heading forward again in his career: going to UMd as an assistant in D-I after having been a succesful head coach at a lower level.

That really shows a dedication to his craft and career, along with major cofidence in his abilities. And that he did it, apparently, entirely of his own volition.

"Brutal honesty" can be a plus or a minus in a supervisor, often depending on how it's delivered. 

Coming from a guy who was willing to dedicate himself so totally to his own vocational education,  it ought not to be so problematic.

I think a lot of what is transpiring this season can be chalked up to poor chemistry between ML and the players.  The style of play between the two just doesn't mesh.  That alone can cause a lot of losses, and it doesn't mean that ML is a bad coach or the players are bad.  They just don't fit together.  He didn't recruit them.  You would think that any coach could coach any team and if they are both talented and good at what they do, then they will find a way to win one way or another.  But we are seeing first-hand what it means for the players and coach to not have the right chemistry.   And I'm not sure there is much more going on than that.

VO:

1) I haven't lost faith in the players.  I just said they are shooting poorly, either because of injury or slump. If they start hitting the shots (and they are getting plenty of open opportunities), then we'll start winning and ML will look good.

2) It was obvious you are a big KH supporter.  The ONLY people I've seen ripping the new coaces here  are either the KH loyalists or those who were extremely disappointed when Dooley wasn't hired.

3) The A-10 is significantly stronger than last year. Not sure where you get weaker from. Last year we got 8 games against teams Last year, we played 9 games against teams with losing or .500 records.  This year, we are likely to play just 2. The latest Bracketology, not that it means much, has 4 in the dance.

4) If you want to compare position by position, I would be open to that. Perhaps start a new thread. it would be interesting to compare.  The problem of course is that players are only as good as they play.  So while in theory I'd put Kromah up against most of the shooting guards in the league, the fact is that the actual Kromah (the real one, not the theoretical one we remembered from two years ago) is shooting 33,.5% from the field.  How many A-10 teams have a starting two guard shooting that poorly? 

5) If any players read this, they shouldn't.  This is a fan site and critiquing players is par for the course. Any player who reads it, knowing they shouldn't, better have a thick skin.

6) ML took Marquis Blakely from Vermont to the pros. That's arguably more impressive than recruiting McD's all-american types at a top 5 program (built by another coach) and getting them to the pros. I do give Hobbs credit, though, for Pops and Hall making the NBA. That was impressive.  If he could have done it again, he'd still be here.

7) The reason he got fired is that it was pretty clear GW was not going to go to the NCAAs again soon under Hobbbs.  We were not going to jump 100 points in the RPI with no inside scoring, it's unlikely the team would have shot like it did in the 2nd half last year just because Hobbs was coaching (more likely it would revert to the form of previous years because it's hard to consistently make them when you don't get open ones),

8) The majoirty of Hobbs' seasons as a head coach were losing seasons.  What percentage of ML's career seasons have been losing seasons?  I'll leave it to you to do some research of your own to back up your opinions.

9) As I posted on the other thread, this team is not actually much worse than last year.  Just a little unlucky (while last year's was lucky, per Ken Pom).  But on a possession per possession basis, it's actually fairly close.  A little bit better shooting and statistically we'll actually be better than last year, even if the W-L doesn't show it.

 FQ, although you made a number of factual errors, your post was one of the most accurate descriptions as to what's going on with this Colonial team that I've read.  One other point.  I'm ALL IN on Lonergan, but he's got a long way to go.  Why do I say that?  Because there's no way Tony, Lasan, Dwayne, Micic, Ware and to a lesser extent Edwards all become (relatively) unproductive if the coach is performing effectively.

I'm sure I did make errors.  I'm just spouting off, without proofing or deep research or anything. Feel free to correct (I'd be curious).

FQ,

I wouldn't quibble with much of your last post.  But Hobbs' firing was much more complex than the administration didn't think he was going to take GW to the NCAA's anytime soon.  I believe the reasoning behind the firing has been exceptionally well mined in threads around that time.  Wins and losses certainly played a part, but politics and personalities played a MUCH bigger role, I believe.  This board develops shorthand narrative and it gets repeated for a long time for newcomers, etc.  so the way you presented it was not very accurate.

Having said that, it was time to move on from Hobbs and we'll see how ML & Co. do.  Clearly, this year is close to being an almost total bust and I don't know what it portends for the future.  But no how much the team sucks this year, if there are some stars among Paris, Garino, Armwood, Savage, and hopefully McDonald, Larsen etc. then GW could be pretty good next year.

Doesn't change the central point, Thinker, which is that the administration is not regretting the firing of Hobbs becuase of the losses this season.  I happen to agree with you that his personality and failure to sell the school was a big part of why he got fired, but it wasn't that relevant to my post.

 Looking at the stats for a second.Gor the year, GW is shooting 41.8%, which is better than last years 41.5%, but both not very good.  3 point shooting is33.5%, about the same as last year's 33.6.  The bad gues shooting is up from 42.9% in 2010 to 43.8% this year (not good), and 3 point shooting isup from 36.5% last year to a whopping 38.1% this year.  The biggest differences seems to be in rebounding (last year we outrebounded the opponants 35.9 to 33;9, this year we are being outrebounded 35.1 to 33.8).  Didn't look at the numbers, buy may guess is that the difference in particular are on the offensive boards.  Maybe this is where the loss of Katuka and the poor health of Smith has impacted us.  The other big difference is our turnovers are up from 12.3 per game to 14.1, a significant jump.  Between the drop of rebounding and the increase in turnovers, we are probably just getting less opportunity to score, so with the same shooting percentages, our scoring has dropped from 64.9 ppg to 61.1 ppg, a difference of amost 4 points per game, which is huge.  So, it may be as simple as rebound more and turnover less.  Or it may be we are just bad.

 Stats don't show a regression by  Ware.  His average is up from 5.4 to 6.8, shooting percentage the same 40.3/40.2/  free throws up from 73.2 to 79.2, rebounds about the same 3.8/3.6.  Minutes are slightly up from last year.  Don't think it is fair to measure Smith due to illness, or Kromah due to injury.  Taylor has regressed (preasure of having to be Kemba Walker?).  Mikic is interesting.  deadeye 3 point shots of last year are down, but he is certainly a more versatile scorer now, and has picked up the defense.

I absolutely agree with the premise, FQ - There is unlikely to be any regret in the administration.

Intersting stats, LSF. I would not have guessed that shooting is about the same -- then again, I guess it makes sense given my contention that we shot well when we won and poorly when we lost and overall we were pretty close to our sesason average performance from last year (especially since we shot so well in Ohio).  Do you have stats for our wins vs our losses?  I'll bet there is a big disparity

LSF: the difference offensively is the inability to get to the line and the reluctance to shoot 3s.  GW is leading the nation in 2pt FG attempts....mainly because the don't shoot FTs or 3pt FGs.  It's a bad way to try to score.

 I think the problem myself and others are having is not the losses but the manner in which the games are lost. We are not competitive against Cal, Kansas State, Syracuse or St Louis in the 2nd half. We were down 20 to Loyola Maryland, James Madison, VCU, St. Bonaventure and down 15 to a bad UAB team. I mean seriously, c'mon. I wasn't expecting a 22 win season but not being able to be competitive in these games is on the coach. Give the players crap for trailing but also give them credit for rallying back albeit unsuccessfully. 

All those things you are say are true. But what bothers me about the KH-loyalists' argument is that you are ignoring the same thing happening last year.

Last year,we were down 14 to Navy, 13 to Hampton, 12 to UNC-W (both are wose than this year's UAB).  We were down 20 George Mason. We were down 20 to BU and non-competitive all game.  

We lost to UAB by 35, the only team even close to the Syracuse, Cal, K St. teams you cite from this year. I'm sure if we had played teams like that last year, we would have lost even worse.

In confernce,  we were down 15 to the Bonnies (at home, with their PG and Nicholson both in foul trouble most of the game).  We lost by 35 to Duquesne.  We lost by 16 to Temple at home (worse than we lost to K St. or VCU by this year).   We were even down 13 at home to a 22 loss St. Joe's team, came back to tie, then got blown out by 12 in OT in a tourney on our own court.  

If all those things hadn't happened last year, I'd be as incredulous as you about the results this year.  But they happened. How can you pretend they didn't? 

Because last year's facts don't compare with this year's facts?

Sorry, but some of the response to FQ's stick-to-the-facts analyses remind me of mrs. ziik's struggles with her fifth grade math students, many of whom cannot grasp that the laws of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade math, at least for her purposes, are immutable, and don't change from class to class, year to year, or situation to situation. 

It's hard to believe that the loss of Katuka could be so significant, but the other 4 starters each also seem to have regressed, and that's even after factoring the injuries to Kromah and Smith. And the bench is the same bench as last year.

GW isn't missing KH so much as it is missing a big man -- any sort of big man -- to take some of the pressure off the other 4 guys, both on offense and on defense. I don't see Pellom becoming the answer. Not this year.

From March until the time Hobbs was fired, there was a consistent prediction from this board that GW could be a legitimate NCAA or NIT contending team this season (with Hobbs, Lasan, Copes, and the 2 Davises on board).  This was not based on delusion; it was based on everything trending the right way.  At the risk of forgetting about last year's OOC play, what the 10 A10 wins told us was that this team had greatly improved over the course of the season.  They had come together and learned how to win together.  Improved team, star player returning from injury, top 50 recruit coming in, etc.  And most importantly, I don't recall a single poster, certainly not you Bobo, suggesting that this was wrong.  Not one person said we'll likely have another .500 season or worse under these circumstances.  Not one.

Today, we're reminded by Bobo what our RPI was last year and that we were delusional to think that this team, under these obsolete circumstances, could have reached a major postseason tournament.  And the real reason why we're being told this is because the team is 5-11.  It doesn't matter that there's a new coaching staff or that Copes and Trey Davis aren't here.  In Bobo's mind, we weren't good enough last year and we're not good enough right now so how could we have been good enough if circumstances hadn't changed? 

It can be argued, but not proven, whether we would have reached the postseason with Hobbs.  What can not be argued is Bobo's failure to disagree with our "delusional predictions" back at the time they were made.  Seems to me that he must have also thought that this team had a legitimate shot at the postseason back then, despite what he'll tell you today.

 MV, most of us were in Delusional City as bobo pointed out. next year we'll be revisiting Delusional City as we do for each upcoming season as we've done at least sonce 1968. Copes was the man who was going to take us where? let's take a look how he's doing at GMU. Jon Davis was KH's 2nd choice. that KH we've been told is a great judge of talent....right. maybe ML doesnt play him because he's too good KH had all year to recruit we got Davis. ML has 15 minutes hegets Kopriva. hmmm.

we're a team that needs the 5 guys on the floor all have a good night if we are to win.  IMO that's what happened the end of last year when we won 3 straight. then against St Joe's that didnt happen and we got the predictable result, we lost. ML was brought here to implement his system not prolong the agony of the Wheel. the players are semi-pro they got a new coach, it happens all the time. let's stop the BS excuses.

MV, if you knew last March that Lasan Kromah would come back as a 33.5% shooter, that Eric Copes as a freshman would be no better than Jabari Edwards, that Dwayne Smith would get hurt and be a non-factor, that Mikic would shoot 10 points worse from three despite plenty of open looks, that TT would stop hitting the open 17 footers that were his bread and butter, and that Trey Davis is actually a marginal D1 player would you have still thought it realistic that we could be a tourney team?

Off-season hope and hype doesn't always match reality?

GW's RPI for the previous 4 years:

2008: 185

2009: 204

2010: 148

2011: 145

A team has to be around 35-45 as a mid-major to get an invittion to the NCAA.  Yes, any perdiction that GW in 2012 was NCAA bound was not based on facts but on delusion and overly optimistic projections.  No objective source had GW as a Tourney contender and that's a simple fact.  Certainly GW could be above where it is right now but VOR and MV's NCAA prognostications were always delusional.   (that's not saying I haven't been overly optimistic in the past and won't be going forward)

GW just lost to st. louis by 22.  they beat the same group last year.  St louis isnt even that good.  i am still trying to figure out how last years staff gets canned in April after going 10-6 in the A10.  We have no chance at getting to 10 wins this season.  and possible next season becasue once Taylor  graduates, how will the colonials get the ball up the floor?  Val brown, TJ, Elliot, Rice are not walking through that door.

Lay off the weed, stoner.  St. Louis isn't that good?   They were in the top 25 earlier in the year, and they are ranked 11th! in the pomeroy rating and 32 in the Sagarins.  They got an all-league point guard back this year (playing at a high level), their big man has taken a huge step forward this year, their shooter has returned to health after being hurt last yer, and last year's freshmen have taken a step forward.  And if you are upset that they beat us by 22, just remember that last year, we were losing by 35 to UAB and Duquesne.

Anyway, can't we support our team without disrespecting good opponents? 
 

I's hard to evaluate our relative place in the world, when you don't pay attention to teams outside Foggy Bottom. 

FQ, other than Dwayne Smith, the facts you are citing on today's team do not make them so if a coaching change hadn't been made.  Are you convinced that under Hobbs, Lasan's and Nemanja's shooting percentages wouldn't be any better?  Forget about the style of play or the offense that they run.  Purely from a confidence standpoint, you really don't think that Lasan and Nemanja wouldn't be having more productive seasons under Hobbs?

As for Copes, I'll say this again, hopefully for the last time.  You are showing off your ignorance if you truly believe that Copes's statistics/contributions would be no different under Hobbs than they are at Mason.  Different head coach, different system, different usage (likely to be playing far more minutes this season at GW under Hobbs), etc.  Plus, his entire demeanor would be different (for the better) at GW.  He has wanted to play at GW the past 5 years.  Suddenly, this opportunity is taken from him.  To imply that Copes would have been a bust at GW because of what he's doing at Mason is nothing short of ridiculous.

Bobo, you still really haven't answered the question:  if my or others overly optimistic projections for this year's team under Hobbs were delusional, why didn't you point this out at the time?  Or, is it just too easy to assume that this year's 5-11 team under Lonergan would have been just as bad (or close to this bad) under Hobbs?

Finally, I am well aware that I am arguing a hypothetical and if you're going to argue that I have no facts to back up what I'm saying, well, you got me considering that my position is hypothetical.  However, it is a position that is based on the facts I pointed out earlier in this thread.  Nothing about any of those facts are delusional.  I'm happy to drop the discussion but please note that I only brought it up because it rubs me the wrong way when we are now (at 5-11) being told that a postseason possibility represented delusional thinking, when it reality, it was far from it at the time such predictions were being made.

Pomeroy stats are subjective and yes, st louis isnt that good, I said it again.

Postseason possibility wasn't delusional, but even under Hobbs, it depended on several ifs:  Kromah returning to form (he hasn't), Mikic repeating his shooting performance (he hasn't), the team staying healthy (it hasn't) and Copes being a big upgrade in the middle over Joe/Jabari (in reality, he isn't).   

On Kromah and Mikic, all I know is that they are getting open shots, probably more open shots than they would get under Hobbs, and missing them.   I think the coach's job is to get the right players the right shots at the right times, and the players' job is to execute.  On the court, the screening offense is getting them plenty of looks, and if they can't make those open looks, I don't know why a reality-based view would suggest that they would make the same shots under Hobbs.

On Copes, I never said anything about being a bust or about stats.  I have watched him play some. On offense, he is about the equivalent of Jabari.  On defense, he is a good shot blocker, but frequently gets caught out of position like most freshmen.  I expect him to be far better down the road, but the freshman version of Eric Copes is about the same as the 5th year version of Jabari and to deny that is to reduce the credibility of your argument.

Look, , if we want to base our disussion on the fantasy land version of our playes -- the one where Copes is an instant impact player from Day 1, and where Kromah and Mikic don't miss open shots -- then I'd have to say I agree with you that we should make the postseason. 

By the way, MV, what do you make of the fact that statistically we aren't that much behind last year (162nd last year vs 188th this year, based on per possession performance)?    The record reflects a combination of tougher schedule and some bad luck (like JMU and Bradley making a bunch of lucky shots). 

All that needs to happen is Lasan or Tony to rediscover their shooting touch and we'll be right about where we were last year (and, we all agreed before the season that GW could improve and not have it show up in the record because of improved schedule).

I think maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word subjective.

The Pomeroy stats may have flaws, but they are the opposite of subjective. 

 MV, we've played 15 games and we're 5-11? where i come from 5+11 = 16, just saying. or perhaps we've lost a gamethat hasnt been played yet. i'm sure you have a good explanation. since you said 5-11 twice i assume it wasnt a typo. 

DELUSIONAL. you must be a member of DEA's ' i'm so over Hobbs club', just saying. hang in there.

FQ, my point is that we don't know and we'll never know.  I'm not saying that Lasan and Nemanja would be making more shots under Hobbs.  At the same time, it's just as unfair to assume that they would be missing at the same rate. Maybe KH's dismissal has negatively impacted their moods.  Maybe they hate basketball right about now.  Maybe they were particularly close with one of our departed assistant coaches.  Maybe they are responding poorly to the manner in which ML and staff coach.  Or, maybe Lasan isn't 100% healthy and would be the same exact player with or without Hobbs due to the injury. 

It's really not worth speculating over.  I just don't think it's fair to assume that we'd be the same team under Hobbs or for that matter, that we'd be failing to contend for a postseason spot.  If we were 11-5 right now, this discussion wouldn't even be happening.  It's only because we are 5-11 that it is.

Last year after the disasterous start, I don't think many would have forseen our finish.  I don't see it turning around, BUT let's not forget how well we played in Ohio (SO long ago).  So these guys have it in them if they can get their heads straight. 

Hard to argue with a Stoner when he makes such a strong case.  St Louis isn't good...he said it so it must be so.  SLU is 13-3 and is averaging a 16pt has averaged about a 16 point margin over it's opponents (70-54).  It is in the top 25 nationally and #1 in the A10 in both offensive and defensive efficiency and points per possession.  It's also top 25/31 in true shooting %, assists and 3pt FGs given up/game.  Last year they were without their best 2 players in Mitchell and Reed and played 4 freshmen and 2 sophmores.  This year they have a very effective PG in Mitchell back and the 4 talented freshmen have progressed to much more productive sophmores.   They are good this year on both sides of the ball.

I just wanted to add that to the record because, appaarently, if annonymous board posters claims go unrefuted (like MV's NCAA predictions), they immediately become gospel....even if they don't have facts to back up those statements.   

Bobo, I don't expect you to go back and refute every claim here that you disagree with.  It's just pretty evident that there were a number of people here who on a number of different occasions, had forecast a postseason appearance for this team prior to Hobbs getting fired.  With as much as you post on this board, there was ample opportunity for you to on at least one occasion come forward and state that even with Hobbs, Copes, healthy Lasan and 2 Davises, you perceived this goal as being delusional.  You didn't and frankly, I have no problem with that.  What I have a problem with is you coming along 15 games into the current season and remind us how delusional we we were for thinking this.  There's nothing real brave or intelligent about your actions.

I don't agree with Stoner but how do you figure Pomeroy is objective? The inputs are objective (observations) but the manner in which he correlates observations is partly subjective. There is no observable "luck" statistic, nor a surefire predictive model to identify winners. Again, he is trying to make things objective that are not capable of being made objective because of intangible factors not observed or not observable. As I stated before there is a vast difference between using observations (we shot 35% etc.) as a metric for whether we are meeting some threshold of coach expectations and combining observations to suggest measures of overall performance.

I did say at the time that I didn't think GW was going to the NCAA under Hobbs or not under Hobbs.  What i was responding to in this thread was VOR's casual assertion that prior to Hobbs' dismissal this was a NCAA bubble type team.  Says who? People on this board.  He uses it as an assumed statement of fact when I'm saying that was never the case.  The NCAA predictions were always wildly optimistic wishful thinking of fans and can not be used as a baseline for judging the sucess or failure of this season. 

I haven't ventured an opinion bobo but that last post was complete horseshit. It was wildly optimistic to think pre-season that with a healthy Lasan returning to the bulk of a 10-win A-10 team and with allegedly improved coaching we might possibly qualify for the NCAAs? Maybe in retrospect but not then. Now whether that should be used as a baseline for judging this team is a different matter altogether and I don't fault ML entirely or mostly for why this team isn't clicking.

i would guess that the coaching change has hurt mikic more than anyone else, at least in the short term.  this is pure speculation, but whereas he could spend most of his time last year working on his three point shot, now he's likely spending more time on dribble-drives, rebounding, FTs, etc. on top of a new offense and defense.  there are only so many hours in the day, so this isn't a question of laziness - he could be working harder and longer but still spending less time practicing 3s - and that could be the difference. 

rhetorical question along those lines: is it better to have a marginal ball-handler/driver/3pt shooter than a subpar ball-handler/driver who's a dead-eye 3pt shooter?  we know what lonergan has chosen, and i hope it works out in the long run, but to date i don't think the improvement in other aspects of the game make up for the shooting slump. 

who knows how other players have been impacted by the change (either positively or negatively).  what has frustrated me most from the coaching standpoint is end-of-game situations.  since he was billed as an Xs and Os guy, i expected lonergan to come in with a big playbook full of schemes to get open shots out of inbounds, at the end of games, etc.  that excited me, since i think most people would agree this was one of hobbs' major flaws. 

yet in multiple (if not consecutive) games in december, we'd pull within 1-2 possession and then blow it.  we didn't just miss shots, we didn't get shots off.  on at least two separate occasions, lonergan had tony taylor inbound the ball in an end-of-game situation and we turned it over.  that's clearly a set play that just hasn't worked.  if the players can't execute your end-of-game plays, teach them new ones. 

hopefully these are just growing pains for the players and coaches, but it's certainly been tough to watch so far.

if FQ was a coach he would refer to Pomeroy on the bench.  I mean he compiles a "Luck stat" and people on this blog refer to it.  Ken Pom needs a new stat Bad teams rating, and poorly coached rating.  Maybe ken pom needs to factor in the coaches abilities.  I like Ken Pom as another tool for evaluations, but lets take a step back and realize that good teams do the basics well, take care of the ball, offensive rebound, force turnovers and make free throws. 

MV- this quote, right here, is so bothersome to me:  ""As for Copes, I'll say this again, hopefully for the last time.  You are showing off your ignorance if you truly believe that Copes's statistics/contributions would be no different under Hobbs than they are at Mason.  Different head coach, different system, different usage (likely to be playing far more minutes this season at GW under Hobbs), etc.  Plus, his entire demeanor would be different (for the better) at GW.  He has wanted to play at GW the past 5 years.  Suddenly, this opportunity is taken from him.  To imply that Copes would have been a bust at GW because of what he's doing at Mason is nothing short of ridiculous."

We don't have ANY idea whether Copes statistics/contributions would be better or worse under Hobbs than they are at Mason---yet, you continually talk about the fact that his actual numbers, the only real facts there are, are a poor indicator of how he would have played at GW.  Instead, you rely on pure conjecture--that he would be "likely to be playing far more minutes" at GW and "his entire demanor would be different (for the better) at GW").  You also speculate that he has wanted to play at GW the past 5 years, and that the opportunity was taken away from him.  

First, we have no clue if he would be playing more minutes.  Maybe Hobbs would decide that Daymon Warren and Jabari Edwards were better than Copes, and Copes minutes would be exactly the same.  Maybe under Hobbs system Copes would wind up with 3 fouls in the first ten minutes, and not see the floor again until 8 minutes are left in the game.  Maybe he would get fewer rebounds, what with being out by the perimeter running the wheel on offense.  

Second, I haven't seen enough of Copes to know his demeanor---but to argue that it would be better at GW is absurd---the dude got to choose where he played ball--he chose GW--and then chose GMU.  If he's not happy with that decision, that's his issue- nobody forced him to go to GMU.

Lastly, you say that "the opportunity" to attend GW was taken away from him.  I'm not so sure that's true.  I don't know, but I can't imagine that ML or GW instructed Copes to go elsewhere.  Copes chose to go elsewhere--and he had very good reasons for doing so---but GW didn't take the opportunity to play for GW away- he chose to go with his uncle.  This seems to show that he wasn't interested in playing for GW--he was interested in playing for his uncle--he got that opportunity, at Mason.

I know--I can't show he's a "bust" at GW.  Nor have I made that argument.  But at least that argument is based on some sort of facts--the stats.  The argument that he would be successful at GW is based on true speculation, and the clear bias you have with Hobbs.

Danj, my point isn't to suggest that Copes would be wildly successful at GW.  My point is to suggest that looking at his numbers in Mason and projecting that these are what they would have been at GW under Hobbs is ignorant.  This year's statistics, the only real facts as you refer to them, have no bearing on what he might have contributed to this year's GW team.  None.

And, saying that Copes has wanted to play here for the past five years is by no means speculation.  He has worked at KH summer camps and it's been a foregone conclusion that he'd be playing at GW since he was in the 10th grade.  And while the option of playing at GW may or may not have been taken away, the option of playing at GW for Hobbs/Houston was.  He was extremely interested in playing for Hobbs, not solely his uncle.

 MV, if Copes wanted so much to play for GW why isn't he playing for us? could it be he wanted to play for his uncle? he didn't have minimum entrance requirements? why would someone so highly recruited not go to the school he's always (5 years) wanted to? how was this opportrunity taken from Copes?

MV, you've got a choice......shit or go blind!

Newtman, why don't you re-read, or should I say read, the last sentence of my last post and see if you can answer your own question. 

MV- he never wanted to play for GW.  He wanted to play for his uncle---and probably Hobbs.  But how much did the head coach really matter?  He just followed his uncle to GMU.  I'm certain he could have had other opportunities, with a different head coach, if he wanted it.

That point, to me, is irrelevant.  What is relevant is the constant babble that the stats (his actual numbers) are insignficant, because it is a different system.  Could the numbers be different if he played here- sure.  But they could also be exactly the same.,  The player is who he is.  The player, presumably, would choose a college (and a coach) that would fit his style of play and allow him to succeed.  He chose Hewitt and Mason.  Maybe he'd be better elsewhere- maybe he wouldn't.  but to speculate that his demeanor would be better here---to speculate that his numbers would be greater here--is no less irresponsible than looking at his numbers and saying that he would be a bust at GW.

 MV, he wanted to play for GW, right. GW is still here what happened? you think if Uncle was retained he would have left because KH wasn't head coach....dream on.  again....shit or go blind! (i think you can figure that out.)

MV, thanks for recognizing we have a record of 5-10 as in we played 15 games.

Danj and Newtman, all you've really proven to me is that you know absolutely nothing about this particular situation.  Don't take my word on any of this; that's fine with me.  I'm very much done with this discussion.

 MV, i wish i were as smart as you. it must be awesome to be The MV.

Stoner,  I think you are sort of missing the point.  The Pomeroy ratings are not perfect by any stretch (if you want, I can talk to you about what I see are the flaws).  But, as you say, they are a worthwhile tool. In fact, if you agree that they are a worthwhile tool, I'm not sure what your beef is with my citing them, other than that they don't confirm your opinion.

To respond to some of your points specifically: 

1) You ask for a rating that factors in coach abilities -- well, the ratings do factor that in.

2) You talk about doing the basics well, like taking care of the ball, getting offensive boards, forcing turnovers and making FTs -- well, all those things are factored into the Pomeroy ratings.

3) In fact, beyond just his overall ratings, he provides specific data for each of those things.  And, even better, he does it on a per possession basis so that uptempo teams that have more possessions don't skew the data

(e.g. a Tom Penders team that has 80 possessions a game and averages 13 turnovers per game would actually be better at taking care of the ball than a Chris Mooney team that plays 60 possessions per game and only turns it over 12 times per game.  The Mooney team is giving it up every 5 trips down the court, the Penders team only every 6.2 times -- but the raw stats would suggest Penders team turns it over more).

4) I'm not sure if you understand what the ratings are.  They are actually very simple -- it's just points per possession scored and points per possesion given up, but then adjusted for the quality of competition.  So for offense, the more FTs you miss, the worse your points per possession. The more you turn it over, the worse your rating.  The more you grab offensive rebounds, the more opportunities it gives you to increase your rating.  If you know a better way to provide data on how our offense and defense are doing -- compared to all 345 D1 teams, not just in a vacuum-- I'd love to see it.

5) With the luck stat, I think you are getting hung up on terminology.  It's just a measure of whether a team's record is better or worse than their performance on a possession-by-possession basis suggests it ought to be given their competition. It's not a perfect stat, more just interesting to note, especially since it does confirm what we've seen on the court last year and this year (last year, some teams imploded when we played them; other games

For example, I content that we've been unlucky this year.  We've faced a couple of teams that have gotten unusually hot, and not just because of our defense.  Bradley and JMU in particular don't usually hit rainmaker, contested chucks with consistency, but they did against us.  That is at least some degree of bad luck (and some is that we give teams confidence by not defending that well).  Bradley had a 2-22 three point shooter hit like 4 of 5 against us. Doesn't even matter if we left him wide open, a 2-22 shooter isn't normally going to get that hot, so it's our bad luck to play him on the day he got hot (yes, there is a little more than luck at work, but you can't deny that luck is a factor).
Likewise, when Bowling Green played us, we couldn't miss.  That doesn't comport with our season averages, nor Bowling Green's defensive averages. Maybe it was just their bad luck to play us on a day we were focused and red hot, though certainly their poor defense was a factor (but it's not like we've been hitting the open shots against other teams this year like that).  

At any rate, there are two teams on the court.  You act like the only variable in winning and losing is how our team plays.  Certainly the better we play, the better our chances. But how the other team plays (especially compared to their average performance) is just as big variable.    Sometimes you catch an opponent on a day when they are hot, sometimes the other team catches you when you are hot.