I know we have a young team . And my epectations of some of the freshmen may be high , along with returning players. However I will be satisfied with a A-10 tournament berth and 8 conference wins.

Don't know what happened to my first response, but I will try again.  The question is difficult.  I think we can pretty much anticipate net season to be anther disaster, especially from a won and loss perpective.  This is probably our worst team in 3 years, and given our last 2 seasons, that means we are pretty bad.  For me to see it as successful, however, we MUST not get shut out of the A-10 tournament again.  I would like to see a couple of freshman that can get me ecited about the future.  I would like to see Katuka as an established A-10 center and much improvement from Taylor and King.  I would like to see Ware develop an outside shot.  But, most of all, it will be successful if the optimism can return to the program, which is completely tied into the qulity of this year's recruting class.   

If Hobbs could go a who season without employing the "youth and ineperience" ecuse, I would consider it a successful year. 

But seeing KH's has dragged that line out in 7 of the last 8 years, I think it will become his go to move this year and we should all epect to hear that line early and often.

This year, this will not be just a line.  By college standards, this team will be young and ineperienced.  Aside from Hollis, who else has even received at least two full season's worth of meaningful minutes?  (Players like King and Katuka have played for two seasons but neither has been a consistent 25 minute/game performer.)

I think my standards are higher than most here even if my epectations have come crashing down to earth.  A successful season will involve only losing a handful of home games at most, staying competitive in most games, and watching the team improve over time.  Very difficult to quantify the number of wins right now.  A 12th place finish in the A10?  Sorry, not successful in my eyes.

Actually, LSF, the 2009-10 Colonials on paper appear to be the worst GW team in 7 years, at least. 

I think a "successful" season would see the team improve over the course of the season and provide us reason to believe in the future. Even if the team goes winless it could be "successful" under that criteria. Since the past two seasons have seen implosions, Stalin-esque dissappearances of players and a complete killing of any interest we might have in the team, a team that keeps us on the edge of our seats in to March and leaves us drooling for what is to come would be a very welcome change indeed. And yes, in 2009-10 KH can trot out the "youth and ineperience" line without growing a Cyrano de Bergerac nose (or being derided on this board). However, he would be wise to use it sparingly since he needs to use this coming season to focus more on teaching the young players to be ready for their remaining seasons of elligibility than on their shortcomings as frosh.

And, of course, selling hot dogs not left over from last season at the Smith Center concessions would also be a "success".

In order:

1) Keep all players on team (live with your recruiting decisions)

2) Keep all recruits on track to graduate and learning how to improve as basketball players

3) Make A-10 Tournament

4) Play a full D1-quality schedule

In short, make GW Basketball a nonembarrassment

Long suffering fan and GW alum abroad,

Why do you believe this is one of the worst teams ever  ?

The Detroit Lions will be better net year than the season past for the same reason GW will be better: there's only one way to go - UP!

I think Hobbs should be contractually barred from calling his team "young and ineperienced" for a 3 year moritorium.  He's used up that ecuse, claiming it in 7 or the last 8 years.  I don't care if it happens to be true this year - even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

There will be lots of freshman play, but the team will have some eperience.  Not only Hollis but also King (who has averaged over 20 minutes a game in his first 2 seasons).  Tony Taylor played every game last year, averaging about 28 min/game.  Hopefully he'll make the jump in play from as a freshman to his sophmore season.  For the overwellming majority of college players, who they are as a sophmore is about as good as they'll be as seniors with only playing time increasing their stats. Sole eception to theat is the etremely raw but athletic big man who sometimes makes a jump or a bench player who finaly gets some playing time in his last season.  So net year's Taylor will be about as good as he'll be as a Colonial.

I like Taylor and King to combine for 40 minutes of eperienced PG play and be the steading influence on all the freshmen wing players.  I like Damian Hollis to be the go to scorer and versitile big man.  I like Katuka to finally show some consistency down low.   I like GW to press and run more than they've done in the last 3 years.  I like GW. 

It is truly stunning how low our epectations are.

KH should be proud. He's finally succeeded in totally lowering our ambitions from the way the program was for much of the past 16 years to the point where we are thrilled to play a full schedule and make the league tournament.

Anyway,  the coach is ineplicably staying, so maybe he can pull himself and the team out of the self-induced funk and grow up and take the consequences of his actions.

Mentz said it all and very concisely.

It's a new year, so even we can't forget the inane behavior of the past two years, maybe  we can get past it. And we all support the team, no matter what, or we wouldn't be discussing this in mid-May.

Heres my take on why I feel we will be  good. With Taylor,King,Ware and Hollis returning.You throw in four freshmen that are coming in ready to play. Three if Pellom doesnt get stronger over the summer. These freshmen are going to make the returning players better. Because they are capable of taking their starting spots. So they have to elevate their game, or else.

Duane Smith had a couple of 30 point games at Bridgton Academy,and averaged a double-double while there.He has a inside out game.Nice around the basket,with big man moves.A rebounder and shot changer.Can step out and shoot the three with consistency. And he runs the floor.A tough match-up for any big. He is from a winning program, and has always been a winner where ever he has been. He is ranked 23rd in New England.

Damon Warren , simply a brusier. Underrated and highly skilled big that runs the floor. Blocks shots and will dunk it with a man on his back. Strong as hell, a brute!! a big that can pass with nice moves below the basket. Averaged 15points and 8 rebounds a game. Ranked 27th in New England.

Tim Johnson, super athlethic 41 inch verticle.. Loves to play defense,shoots the three and a mid range game to match. Averaged 12 points and 9 rebounds a game.Which is miss leading,because his coach subbed 5 players every 5 minutes.So those are half a game stats. Ranked 33rd in New England and passed on 2 BCS schools to come to GW.

These three will come in ready.They are from arguably the best high school league in the country. And have played against D-1 talent every year there. So their only adjustment will be the strenght of the D-1 game.

Remember ,Mike Hall ,J.R, and Pops went 11-16 their first year, 5-11 in conference.

I feel better days are ahead...

You throw Bynes and Pellom with those three, and let the good times roll.

Havent seen Bynes,however he sounds kinda like a Johnson type of player. If he is half  as good as advertised,we are gonna be really good.

Dolphin Michael,

I must say you are right. Whithout a real inside game the rest is moot. It would be nice to have a big, dominate the inside draw fouls. Then when he is doubled teamed throw it out for the three. The game should be played inside out. Not outside in. Who knows maybe Hobbs will change,because he brought in some nice post players, who play with their back to the basket.

My problem is it appears that he is trying to clone the undefeated team. You cant do that,you must add to what you already have each year to maintain progress.

Anyhow I will remain positive until I see different..

1) Competitive team that seems to have fun on the court and around each other.

2) Marketing plan that can fill the lower bowl (student section and the blue seats). This should include a strategy to fill seats for games during student breaks.  And epanding the marketing of the team throughout the city outside of the 'GAME TODAY' banner outside the smitty.

3) An accuracy proof-reader for the Hatchet's BBall related editorials.

4) A GWhoops fan base that doesn't cry out for firings or salvations after each L or WL. Base the season on the whole.

5) If Hobbs succeeds, that he receives accolades for it and not the "he just recruits athletes and rolls a ball out on the court" mentality

6) If Hobbs fails, a big $$$$ alum to buy out his contract, which is what happens at 'big-time, bball-serious' institutions of higher learning. LOL

Bobo..interesting theory on how players generally ma out abilitywise after their sophomore seasons.  Couldn't disagree more but it is interesting.  Colonials who games improved considerably as juniors and seniors...Jaason Smith, TJ Thompson, Carl Elliott, Rob Diggs, Noel Wilmore...to name a quick few.  And, I'm not referring to better stats due to more minutes played.  I'm referring to their games.

Dolphin..your post made me think of Omar's "posterizing dunk" on David West.  Thank you for that.

Hooper...keep in mind that there are many pessimists on this board (LSF does not have an eclusive on this) which comes from years if not decades of anticipating the worst with ample reason.  Personally, I believe that if Hobbs has the horses, which is a big if, he'll win far more than he loses.  I hope you've seen at least some of the incoming freshmen play because they do hold the key regarding this program's future.  (Based on returning players alone, we're clearly in the lower half of the conference.)  Also, if Hobbs is trying to "clone" the Mike/Pops/Omar class, I'm all for it.  To me, this means he's looking for players to perform very specific roles.  Where something like this gets you into trouble is when the coaching staff uses unfair comparisons or is unrealistic (i.e. "Mike would never set a pick like that").  Assuming this will not be the case, bring the clones on.

I followed the board for a couple years now and have never really posted on it, but if all of you guys seem to really dislike hobbs and think that he is really not a great coach then why is he still around, why hasnt gw moved in the direction of a new coach?

NHfinest, your post seems to assume that, if fans think KH is not a really great coach, he would be dismissed. That assumes 1) the fans are always right and 2) the admin listens to its fans. I'm not sure either is true. In fact, I'm very sure both are not.
The second part of your question, about why they havent gone in a different direction, is a good one. Mostly, it's the buyout. Also, I'd say there's some ineplicable nostalgia from JK, perhaps owing to a last gasp in a waning career ... that the early recruiting years that brought us such success (and infamy) can be repeated. Why? I don't know, but it shows a painful lack of imagination, if not atrophy, that's begun afflicting JK and KH both. All gimmicks and no second act. And consequences be damned.
Can't recruit prep schools? Who else could GW possibly recruit? Can't have KH on the bench? Who else could GW possibly hire?
Whatever happens down the road, I'm convinced the net hire will be punitive and churlish, a completely unqualified dolt who will save the school money and stick it to all the fans who think we deserve better. And, really, given the shining eample of Matt Allbritton, who's to say we do?



5/19/2009 10:33:00 PM
Poster: nhfinest

now i certaintly dont believe that just because the fans talk about it and maybe want it it will happen, I just feel that if it appears do evident that he has been struggling as a coach with recruiting, finding a starting line up that really mies, to even having bad relationships with players.  But i understand now the whole situation behind it, and i didnt mean to come off that naive

5/19/2009 10:38:00 PM
Poster: Bigfan

Failure to play Katuka, who has some big man skills, was a very strange  hard to understand part of a very bizarre season.

FQ is right: need to maimize Joe's potential. Any other team would salivate over someone with his potential and would have already made something out of it.

The description of the new recruits, including big men, does offer some ecitement. Glad to hear it. Hope we see these players on the court. If so, net year could be better than our current low epectations.

5/19/2009 11:18:00 PM
Poster: Long Suffering Fan

Bobo:  I don't necessarily agree that by a sophmore year, a player is as good as he will get as a senior.  However, I will agree that generally by far, the biggest improvement will be the jump from frosh to soph (assuming the player gets off the bench).  Nothing beats that year of varsity ball under the belt in improving one's game.

5/20/2009 2:19:00 AM
Poster: bobo

LSF,

Not saying there's no eceptions to the rule, but players are who they are by their sophmore years.  That includes MV's list: Jaason Smith, TJ Thompson, Carl Elliott, Rob Diggs, Noel Wilmore.   I'll throw in Hall, Omar, Pops, Mike King, Chris Monroe, Yegor, Koul, and most other Colonials. 

Players can get more consistent or take on a larger role (Elliott scoring a couple more points with the added minutes but at a lower FG% because the needed his points as a senior) but the main reason for increased stats is clearly additonal playing time. Even Noel: 3 pts, .7 rep, .3 ast in 9 min/game as a sophmore to 7 pts, 1.4 reb, .5 asts as a senior in 18 mins/game.  He shot better because he got more consistent playing time.  J Smith was misused as a prerimiter player early but found a role down low as a senior and A Hart never really got off the bench until his senior season.  Damian Hollis shot the ball better his junior year after struggling his sophmore year with most of his other production numbers staying similar.

For all the other players their production/minutes played as a sophmore generally holds.   That would not trend well for Joe Katuka but sometimes athletic  but raw big men buck the trend.  Joseph averaged about 5pts and 3.5 rebs in 14 min/game in the 2nd half of last year.  Maybe he gets 8pts, 5 boards/game in 20-24 mins/game net season but that's about it.

And for those who think that Hollis will be at the SF spot mostly or that Katuka and Edwards will ride the bench:  COUNT TO 80.   Show me 80 minutes of PF C time without Hollis at the 4 and Katuka at the 5.  It can not be done.   Katuka's career high in a single game is 23.  Anytime over 20 last year he was either in foul trouble or winded (or both).  Hope for 20 to 24 from JK.   Warren might be a nice freshman but will also probably battle conditoning and foul problems if pushed over 20-25/game. 

Combine them for around 45 minutes/game, add 10 for Edwards and you still need around 25 minutes at the 4 from Hollis.  That's really just for defense anyways since Hobbs has consistently employed a half-court offense with 1 big man down low.  The 4 (Hollis, Hall, Omar, Regis, etc) has mostly played on the perimeter, spoted up at the top of the FT line or romed the baseline for cuts.  Hollis will be fine in that role as long as Katuka and Warren can fill the 5 spot.

5/20/2009 9:59:00 AM
Poster: Free Quebec

Bobo, I think you have to consider Katuka functionally a sophmore since Hobbs wasted his freshmen year by refusing to play or redshirt him.  Eperience-wise he was a freshman last year.  So maybe he'll make the jump this year that most players make freshman to sophmore.   Besides, we did see flashes of a fiery player who wants the ball so maybe without having to defer to a star senior post player (Diggs), he'll make a big step  up.


5/20/2009 12:12:00 PM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

FQ, of course, the problem will be that Katuka will draw the number 1 post defender, as well.


5/20/2009 2:04:00 PM
Poster: Free Quebec

True, but not many of our opponents have a true #1 post defender. 


5/20/2009 3:21:00 PM
Poster: thinker

What we have consistently seen under Hobbs (as we would hope to see) is that he tries to play his best players - whatever their position may be - the most time.  Notwithstanding that he has often had his best players in the doghouse - I epect that's what we'll see this Fall.  If some freshmen play well - we'll see more of them.  If Katuka continues to improve or Edwards or Opoku we'll see more of them.  If the best players turn out to be all guards and small forwards, then I guess we'll see less of Katuka/Opoku/Edwards.  This isn't the NBA where you KIND OF know what players can do.  We have absolutely no idea about any of the freshmen - and there are 6 of them.  So it's pretty hard to guess who'll play what number of minutes.  The only reasonably safe guess is that IF Hollis stays out of Hobbs' doghouse, he'll play a ton of minutes.  After that, it's total speculation.

5/20/2009 8:16:00 PM
Poster: Longing for Oscar

A few things:
More support for the program...specifically, I'd like to see more people attend the games;
Our underclassmen establish themselves as the core we can succeed with over the net couple of years;
Karl not dishing out long term punishment when a player doesn't make him happy;



5/21/2009 8:04:00 AM
Poster: herve

1. Having hervette NOT say "we're going to lose aren't we?" while driving to half of the games.
2. Having hervette actually be ecited about attending games throughout the whole season.
   

5/21/2009 10:02:00 AM
Poster: The MV

Bobo, let's take Noel as an eample.  As you say, he shot better (his senior year compared to sophomore) because he received more consistent playing time (which is of course a joke because while his average minutes were up, his PT was anything but consistent).  Does this also mean that his defense improved solely because of increased minutes?  Did he handle pressure situations better as a senior simply because his minutes went up?  Or, perhaps over the course of four years in this program, Noel simply matured and improved as a basketball player.  Is this plausible?  It should be obvious that as one improves as a player, their minutes should go up.  However, to state that Noel was the same player as a senior that he was as a sophomore is just incorrect.  This discussion goes well beyond statistics and minutes played.

5/21/2009 11:01:00 AM
Poster: notta hater

although I would not state it like MV, he is right.  Players develop at different rates and ages.  Not all players peak or level-off during their Sophmore year.   Although not at GW, I look at GU's Charles Smith as an eample.

5/21/2009 12:12:00 PM
Poster: Young Prof

This is in response to the following passage in a post by Bobo (5/20):

":Not saying there's no eceptions to the rule, but players are who they are by their sophmore years.  That includes MV's list: Jaason Smith, TJ Thompson, Carl Elliott, Rob Diggs, Noel Wilmore.   I'll throw in Hall, Omar, Pops, Mike King, Chris Monroe, Yegor, Koul, and most other Colonials. "

I'm not sureabout the general point. I certainly agree that some of these players improved, but I also take the point that they got much more playing time in which to show how good they really were. For eample, did Chris Monroe -=- one of my all-time favorites -- really improve? Or did he just find himself, by his senior year, having to become a virtual one-man team?

The point I want to raise, though, is about Aleander Koul. Recall that early in his career, he was widely seen as a potential great. Had he left after his sophomore year he was slated to be a lottery pick. By the end of his senior year, he was reduced to a play who doesn't or shouldn't show up on anybody's list of all-time GW greats and he never even got a look by the NBA despite his early promise. His presence on your list of players who established their worth by the end of their second year is undermined by his presence, because he got so much worse. Blame it on coaching, officiating, motivation, whatever, but he regressed badly.

5/21/2009 3:40:00 PM
Poster: Carl Hobbes (No relation)

a successful season??? how about offering a hamburger or something for once? horrid concessions


5/21/2009 3:52:00 PM
Poster: diomedes

half smokes

5/21/2009 4:30:00 PM
Poster: Young Prof

Lest anybody conclude that I was on drugs when I wrote the post a couple of positions up, the truth is that I _am_ on drugs, but it now looks like I need to be on a couple more to alleviate clumsy fingers and weird synta. I tell students: proofread, proofread, proofread. Obviously I need to follow my own advice.

5/21/2009 5:58:00 PM
Poster: Poog

I just figured that some of that was in Morse Code or in some kind of secret handshake information dissemination with the incoming NCAPSA Prez.

5/21/2009 10:50:00 PM
Poster: Bigfan

Last year I would have accepted something vaguely edible at the concessions as the sign of a successful season.

 Even Domino's pizza out of the bo which any high school can manage and they order for the giveaway anyway.

5/23/2009 4:16:00 PM
Poster: FredD

I posted this before that last commitment

1)

5/23/2009 4:29:00 PM
Poster: FredD

A#1 - As mentioned in other posts, GW has to give clear direction to the AD Deprtment and KH about are we an a-10 school or a Patriot League school in the a-10. For all of Hobbs' flaws you know he wants to win and all this smitty renovation is so much lipstick on pig without an actual baseline understanding of what is the goal.

1) All Freshmen Qualify

2) No Walk-On gets serious Johhny Lee type minutes

3) Schedule a full compliment of games. I don't care against whom or where. This is my only real complaint with GW Sports admin. There is no ecuse for games left on the table. If league are tying your hands get a waiver from the league - Do Something. A team this young needs all the games it can get.

4) The team develops some kind of identity - Rebounding, trapping, man-to-man, free throws by February 1; so they can close strong and go to Atlantic City.

5) Win 1 game they have no business winning.

6) KH learns something that shows he understands he is part of the mess.

I agree in all liklihood this year is going to be worse because of no Diggs. As a nod to KH I thought it was amazing he got the last 2 guys after such an awful season. Hope that doesn't mean they can't play

5/24/2009 12:24:00 AM
Poster: hooper

FredD

Who were the last two to sign ? Reason being on ESPN it only has us signing three. Pellom,Warren and Johnson. What happened to Bynes,Smith, and Kromah ? The signing period ended the 21st of May. Just curious and wondering if any of the three backed of their verbals out at the last minute.

5/24/2009 1:45:00 PM
Poster: thinker

Hooper,

If you've followed GW basketball for a while then you'll know that we won't really know who's actually coming to GW until they're actually here and somebody actually sees them - since GW will wait FOREVER to actually release a list of recruits.  I think the sites like ESPN drop guys from their lists if the signing period is over and they haven't confirmed they've actually signed.  What I also saw is that, for eample, Kinley Branch who was always listed as a verbal had actually signed last Fall and was released from the LOI.  So I don't know that there's a way to know for sure who has signed or not until GW announces it. 

Mister Days would know for sure - MD - care to share if all si of the reported players are in fact coming?

Poster:


Title: