30,848 threads containing 140,751 posts in 18 years - (1) Make an argument; (2) Don't call someone an evil pant-load
WATCH
Refreshed at 1:06 PM EST
VCU 79 GW 73
Created: 5/20/2012 4:58:09 PMReplies: 61
3/20/2010 10:06:00 AM - buffandblue_2 - 87 posts (#166)
I saw three things that went wrong with tonights game:

1) I thought our production in the post severely lacked with only 8 points combined out of Katuka and Herm and no presence on the glass whatsoever (especially in the first half)

2) I thought that the refs killed us tonight (but that was out of our control and IMO)

3) Was i the only one, who thought that KH really did a crappy job of coaching tonight. Case and Point with the score 51-49 VCU, we had climbed all the way back into the game, and then he takes out Hollis, Taylor, and Kromah. He essentially puts our second team in the game, so that they could go si straight possessions without a score and two turnovers on those possessions. All of the sudden the lead balloons back up to 10, and at that point it was just too little too late. Why does in-game coaching always seem to burden KH. Am i the only one that doesn't think its that hard to just keep your team on the floor when they are doing well, not making wholesale substitutions to kill your teams momentum, or just even keep a scorer on the floor. Countless times tonight we had 4 minute spurts where literally nobody on the floor was a legitimate threat to score, and VCU took advantage. I think that with better coaching, we win the game, especially because Sanders didn't have the game he's capable of playing.
3/16/2010 11:01:00 PM - Mike K - 1,016 posts (#29)
During the time VCU went from the 51-49 lead to a 10 point lead, we had King, Johnson, Pellom, Smith and Katuka(?) on the floor, and it seemed Pellom and Smith were always at the top or wing with the ball unable to make any moves.  They passed to each other, rather than giving it up to Johnson for a drive or SOMETHING, as Johnson stayed towards the corner and King occasionally touched the ball.  Very poor offensive sets during this crucial time.
3/16/2010 11:14:00 PM - del taxi - 155 posts (#122)

we couldn't score from about the 10 minute to 5 minute mark in each half.  not sure why that was, but during those stretches, the score went from 21-19 (VCU) to 37-20 and then 52-49 (VCU) to 63-51. despite that, it seemed like hollis might will us back into the game.  always net year...

3/16/2010 11:15:00 PM - Alumnus - 2,027 posts (#16)

I agree that neither of the big men had one of their better outings, but the refs were also letting VCU's players work them over, particularly Katuka.  Otherwise, Katuka was out of sync.  He got some opportunities but didn't have the touch.  It happens with big guys.  In a lot of ways he's just finished his freshman season.  Herm just wasn't athletic enough for this game.  Where was Edwards?  I thought this was a game where he would've been useful in some stretches to apply some defensive pressure or block or change a shot or two. 

I also agree that Hobbs didn't have one of his better games.  Two or three times he had crazy lineups with almost no shooting out there, and killed momentum when we were catching up.  Particularly I think when we had closed to around 52-49, he left a unit out there that was obviously dragging and couldn't make a play, King kept forcing passes, and the net thing I knew, we were down by 10 again.  A timeout when the lead got back up to 6 might've broken VCU's momentum and allowed us to regroup. When it got to 61-51 or so, it was basically over.  Another  problem was Taylor.  Someone remarked that sometimes we focus too much on numbers.  Well, this game, I don't think his reported 8 assists to 2 turnovers was an accurate picture.  He did have a couple of nice plays where he created his own baskets and he obviously set up a lot of baskets, but he took way  too long to get plays going when we needed to catch up, he blew yet another front end of a one and one, and he was careless with the ball a bunch of times.  I don't want to lay it all on him, though.  The only two guys who really had it were  Hollis, who played like the warrior I wish we'd seen all his career, and Kromah, who had two tremendous scoring bursts and gave us a nice inside and outside game..   

After all this, I don't know what to make of this team.  It's obviously better than the last two but I'm not quite sure where we are as we go into net season.  I still don't think Hobbs has sorted out what he wants out of many of the players.  But it was nice to have another game and it was eciting if frustrating.

3/16/2010 11:35:00 PM - LA Fan - 1,449 posts (#21)
Oh Hobbs did do a crappy job.  It took Craig Elo on HDnet to point it out.  Hobbs was completely stuck on his zone defense in the 1st half and VCU was lighting us up from 3 point range because of it.  There's your game folks.  Of course Hobbs made the adjustment at half and VCU stopped draining them and GW tried to climb back in, but the deficit was too great. 

I think Hollis played great - tonight's game was for him.  Kromah is a player.  He has the talent.  Now lets build on that.  Taylor is the guy for bringing the ball up the court.  I feel the best when the ball is in his hands.  Now Hobbs, go recruit, get us some more players, and learn how to make adjustments 15 minutes into a game, and not at half time.  We probably would have won if he had done that.
3/16/2010 11:49:00 PM - The Rabbi - 146 posts (#126)
When Hobbs put in the second teamers for that period in the second half, he was trying to give the other guys an etended breather to last from his timeout until the official timeout, which was only supposed to be 30 seconds later. When it ran longer without any stoppages things began to fall apart. My theory was confirmed when he got those guys back in after the eventual official timeout. It was sound coaching, it was just unlucky that the period ran a little too long.
3/17/2010 12:06:00 AM - BLACKBERRY - 591 posts (#39)
Little George here not having watched the game is the bo score attendance figure of 793 accurate Seems low even for Spring Break What did we gain with a home game here Seemingly no advantage other than eperience and further confirmation that we can t defend the three At least we got the five guys on the floor thing down finally
3/17/2010 12:44:00 AM - v-dub - 4 posts (#245)

I'm a lurker here, but felt compelled to post to epress my strong agreement about Hobb's poor coaching tonight, especially with respect to the second half scoring drought after we had clawed our way back.  I understand Rabbi's point about why Hobbs took out Hollis, et al for a breather, but he waited way too long, and until it was way too late, to call a timeout to break VCU's momentum and get the scorers back in.  I'm the first to admit that I know net to nothing about basketball s and Os, but it was painfully obvious to me, and I would venture to say almost everyone else in the arena, that the players we had out there had absolutely no offensive flow going and were just turnovers waiting to happen.  Hobbs waited at least two possessions too long to call the timeout that many of the fans (myself included) were yelling for.  Calling the timeout when we're only down 4 or 6, rather than 10, was one of the differences in the game in my opinion.

On another issue, am I the only one who thought Hobbs should have taken Hollis out of the game when there were only three tenths of a second left and VCU was at the line?  I think it would have been classy for Hobbs to give the fans (despite the relatively low turnout, I thought the fans were pretty into it) one final chance to give Hollis some love, especially after his monster game tonight.  Anyway, I thought it would have been the right move.

3/17/2010 3:52:00 AM - Bigfan - 2,562 posts (#11)
Karl Hobbs: rally killer.
Seriously, VCU only needed Karl Hobbs to push them over the edge to win.
The 52-49 substittution has been well documented.
Around then was when Kromah essentially willed the game to be close for GW by scoring and making
steals and scoring. He was the only one who really wanted it at that particular time, though Damian had a great game.
So what does KH do? Yanks Kromah who singlehandedly had brought us back in the stretch.
There were numerous times when we had no shooters out there for significant periods.  Pellom was lost in the offense and was left in.
There was no one who could score, an important facet of the game one would think.
Also Karl's brilliant time-out strategy seems to impinge on comebacks.
With 3 minutes left he uses his second to last time-out at an odd juncture.
But the capper was using his last time-out when the team had cut the deficit to three with about 47 seconds left.
What if he had needed a time-out in the last seconds of the game? Or what if a player needed one and couldn't inbound a ball, which was a strong possibility with what VCU did to us on inbounds plays.
  Way to lose momentum, Karl, by using your time-out to kill a rally.
  He can't bench coach as another parade of 3's and his odd substitutions and time-outs showed.
Though he did keep only five men on the court, which judging by the la standard set for him, is a huge gain.
  Hobbs can't game coach.
If we have to keep him around, for some reason, when other teams cut their coaching losses after far less, let him recruit players and even pretend to be the head coach during the game and stomp his feet,  while Ellerbee or Colluci or someone who has a feel for coaching live basketball actually handles the team.

3/17/2010 8:35:00 AM - Dolphin Michael - 2,188 posts (#14)
A funny thing happened after the season ended... we got another game. Why?

Well, WAY back when, maybe the GMU game aftermath, some VCU fan got involved in a discussion when I said that Hollis is an NBA quality player in the wrong situation to shine. The dude said that VCU's Sanders would pretty much shut him down.

Well? WELL?

We went with the 2HM and look what happened!?

That was worth it.

OR, was it Johnson's block on Sanders?

Nice one, Timmy!

Smoked.
3/17/2010 8:59:00 AM - herve - 8,704 posts (#1)

From the scary file:

""When we went over their personnel, we talked so much about Larry Sanders and we were so concerned about him and [Joey] Rodriguez, that we almost never talked about the other guys. And we almost played like we never talked about the other guys."

From the funny file:

"The most eciting thing in addition to how we played was our fans, the number of people who showed up for our game. I'm so appreciative of that because everything happened so quick--finding out who we'd play at the last minute. The support was as good as it's been all year."

3/17/2010 9:01:00 AM - Tennessee Colonial - 1,044 posts (#27)
Had to go out last night but not after I was satisfied that Hobbs was continuing his vow of never defending the 3 point shot. He's been burned for years by the 3 pointer but somehow he can't see it. Its like the giant white elephant in the living room. As for game coaching, the Fairfield game of many years back set the stage for his brain freeze antics. I hoped that he would improve by eperience, as we have seen, that is  not the case.
3/17/2010 9:17:00 AM - Tennessee Colonial - 1,044 posts (#27)
I forgot to put in Hobbs quote after the game ,"We felt that if we defended 3s, didn't turn the ball over, and get shots at the basket, we'd be fine".  Really!! Defend the 3, how novel after the season is over.
3/17/2010 9:19:00 AM - Long Suffering Fan - 3,625 posts (#6)
In defense of the post critical of Tony Taylor, he had no help bringing the ball up.  VCU kept imense preasure on him and frankly he was getting ehausted just bringing the ball up.  I know I remain in the minority on this, but TT should not be the point guard, even with his great assist to turnover ratio, for 2 reasons...(1) he does not create on offense, which remains stagnant and (2)  perhaps most importantly, with Damien's departure, he becomes our best scoring option (I know you can make an argument for Kromah), and someone should be setting him up...getting him the ball in a position to score, not the other way around.   Overall, it was a stinky effort by GW.  It was especially painful to see us taunted by fans of a CAA team in our own house.  This game painfully demonstrated that despite our improvment over the last 2 years (I don't think it is dramatic us others may say), this team has MANY holes that need to be filled, both on the offensive and defensive end, and we have a long way to go before we can seriously think (real) post season.
3/17/2010 9:38:00 AM - herve - 8,704 posts (#1)
Taylor's mistake over and over last night was to try and single-handedly dribble through the press. He's not Shawnta, so he can't do that every time. Notice how Rodriguez never tried to dribble alone through GW's press?
3/17/2010 9:56:00 AM - grenada man - 1 posts (#248)
For the folks who continue to bash coach Hobbs I hope these are the same people  who have played a major sport in either high school or college. Maybe  you can be  coach for a day until then  please keep your day jobs.
To be 19-17?? with 6 freshman and making the Atlantic 10  tournament for the first time in 2 years I   consider  a step up toward  respectability and the   program is going in the right direction. Hopefully coach  Hobbs  will continue to build the program and we can get back to the  glory days of GW basketball. Of course this is not a perfect world  and some of you will disagree with my assessment.... but the guys  on the team are very good young men  on and off the  court and carry the GW name with a high moral standard. At the end of the day can you translate that into a 20 win season and the ncaa tournament only time  will tell but until then as I said before  please keep your days or if you do go to GW maybe try out for the  team and see if you can make a difference net year.
3/17/2010 9:57:00 AM - Dolphin Michael - 2,188 posts (#14)
Bynes--One of the worst games of his short career at GW. He just needs to use his speed as often to get out of trouble as to get into it. It would also be nice to see him go into the weight room for the off-season and get closer to a D1 body to compete. When the guy on the ball can make a basic pass or demand the attention of his team, then we are in trouble. Possibly, it was also having King out there and the confusion as to 1 and 2. This shouldn't happen on a team that has played 30 games.

Speaking of bad passes... the freshmen, lead by Pellom were just tossing some lame ones last night against VCU. I am hoping that Mr. Pellom is looking at his numbers and at Hollis' and see how amazingly uninspiring they were. He doesn't do much work to create space. He needs to get bigger and badder down in the paint. David certainly has some basketball skills that are above average. The question is, will he do the work and the game development necessary to be an impact player?

Smith went into a shell after a few bad eperiences early on. He still fought, but we will need him, net year, to look for his shots rather than backing off when he feels that he is cold. Kromah was undaunted by the VCU bigs and simply used the rim to protect his shots.

Finally, Katuka's defensive troubles seem to happen when he isn't right net to his responsibility. He has trouble finding his man on rotations... he is two seconds slow on the uptake. Also, when guys drive at him, he shades to the side and gives them a lane. The cherry on top is that, with all his size, he tries to reach into the shot. We really missed Edwards' defense last night. While Joe was decent on the offensive end, he, down the stretch reached on on drives by both of the VCU guards.

I often sound like I don't like Katuka... I do. He has wonderful upside, if the coaches can get to him. Already, he is pretty much money in the post. He doesn't have a 40 minute motor and tends to just stop moving when he gets confused, but, once he is in a groove with his O, then the other team is pretty much in trouble. Last night, I thought that the dish and slam off guard penetration got him going midway through the second half. Katuka can catch the ball. Unfortunately, he makes himself small on the glass. He needs to lean and spread. His rebounding has plateaued. Just like his defensive awareness, he is a fraction of a second slow demanding a part of the offensive rim for rebounds. Katuka, even in 25 minutes net year, should be able to collect 10 to 14 rebounds. The final thing that I would do if I were coaching Katuka is work with him in a one on one situation down low where a single defender hammers him on the shot and his job is to put it up high and soft. He rarely gets "and ones." Once he is fouled, Katuka seems to give up on the shot.

Remembering how, before their senior campaign, Pops, Hall, Williams et all, stuck around campus during the summer and worked every day on the game together. If Katuka were to do one thing that would impress, it would be to get the 4s and 5s together and just pound on each other and get strong in the gym, this summer. Get Edwards to use the glass and develop a drop step and a serviceable baby hook. Work the core and the legs and run.

Word from those in the know suggest that Warren is in the class of Edwards and near Katuka. Speed in the paint is often a function of assertiveness and strength. I wonder if those four returning bigs realize that they could/must key the charge to a real 20 game winning season net season. This year, we won almost every rebounding match up. Certainly, much of that credit goes to guys like Kromah and Smith and even the guards, but, if we are going to take that net step, it starts with the guys in the paint. If they get into the habit of disappearing net year, then net year will look a lot like this year.

I will do my best here to make an argument as to why I think this is so so so important. With a sidebar that (1) folks think that Hobbs is a terrible bench coach and (2) We are now focusing (and rightfully) so on points per possession and positive possessions, I think that we absolutely need these bigs to develop both their strengths, their techniques, and their overall game to achieve improvements.

I looked at the 2nd unit "fail" last night as not a coaching failure as much as a team failure to eecute. There was a huge drop off in eecution. Hobbs could have called his time out 2 failed possessions ahead and I will hang that one on coach Hobbs, but more, it was a team failure. As I said right out of the bo this preseason, Taylor looked much bigger than he was during his freshman campaign during which time we saw some hope, but we saw a lot of fail on the ball. Now, we may bicker about his total effectiveness and post correctly that points are killing us on the stat sheet, but he is doing a much better job. Bynes, for all of his speed was last night, muscled out of control. The bigs have to step up and be that option that will score two or at least one each time down. We need to have that option. Guys like Pellom have to be able to post up and get a point or two. Right now, he can't do it. The coaches don't even bother. That's on Pellom and Edwards and Warren to get to that point. In so many games, Katuka gets an opposing center into foul trouble early and then we have nothing to make them pay. Strength alone will be what makes this possible. With strength comes more speed and confidence to make plays.

For me, it was like I watched the same game over and over this season. We stay close, but give up some mini-runs that put us in the whole ... a hole just a fraction too deep to come out of. At  that, when we do grab a lead, we can't hold it. We lack the guaranteed points. We are close, but not there.

The 4 bigs need to produce another 4 to 8 points a game in the weight room and work outs. For the most part, the Hall squad would get every defensive board down the stretch. Last night, we died on second chance points. All we need are two more baskets and two more defensive rebounds and we can change a lot., Trouble is that those couple of rebounds and those points on offense are going to take a lot of work. We need some major league bigs. Those sorts of players develop from hard work. Let's hope that they can do the work that is needed. We need a core of four bigs who show up to every game and can drop the hammer.
3/17/2010 10:09:00 AM - newtman - 1,252 posts (#25)
herve, i agree.  TT is double-teamed and no GW player comes to the ball theyre 20 feet away. just another eample of KH poor coaching.
3/17/2010 10:12:00 AM - Monument - 557 posts (#41)
Granada, check your figures on GWs record, not 19 wins.  I think the team ended 16-15 -- much better than I epected, but not as good as you believe.
3/17/2010 10:18:00 AM - Alumnus - 2,027 posts (#16)

Grenada Man, no one's attacking our players' character.  I should've said it in my previous post but I'll say it now, they all played their guts out and never quit.  It takes a lot of character to come back as many times as they did last night against a good team, not to mention they were fighting three refs who missed calls and were pretty inconsistent on what was a foul.  I can also accept that most of them had never played in a postseason tournament before and naturally could've taken awhile to find their groove.  LSF made a good point about Taylor not getting much help, but I have to agree with Herve that several times he tried to go through a bunch of people, or just kept dribbling without any apparent regard for the fact that he was being surrounded and the ball was knocked away.  I realize that sometimes picking the dribble up is worse, but if you're going to keep your dribble going, get to a position where you only have to deal with guys in front of you.  It's hard for me to believe he only had 2 TOs unless they don't count when an opponent knocks the ball out of your hand from behind.  Maybe some of those were picked up by our players. 

Or maybe the problem is Hobbs not getting the other players to work with him, because we often have 2 or 3 guards out there at the same time with ballhandling skills, plus Hollis is a more than adequate ballhandler to help get it out of the backcourt and get into our offense.

3/17/2010 10:23:00 AM - Dolphin Michael - 2,188 posts (#14)
herve, I don't have as much trouble with Taylor dribbling through the press as much as we don't attack the basket after we broke through. I think that we did some of that, but that's the final payoff. The inbounds players WERE PATHETIC. AND, once they got the ball to Katuka, the guards ran away from the poor guy rather than going right to him for a hand off. Somewhere in the 5 or 600,000 dollars a year, there should be a deliverable for a workable inbounds play that results in points .... for us.

Again, I think Taylor's problem was that his team wasn't getting out of the way. I wouldn't hang it on Taylor as much as you. Bynes and King, more so. I thought that when we got Johnson back on the court at the 2, then things settled down. He was running the plays down the stretch (off the ball) and giving Taylor some space to operate and Hollis some space to catch and shoot. Sometimes, as pathetic as it sounds, if you act like a scorer (you get covered) as in Johnson's case. AND, I think that the one shot from the wing (with a foot on the line) he drained.

I wasn't as concerned about Taylor as much as I was about the absolutely bad passing from the rest of our freshman who continually through passes to guys shoe laces or 5 feet this way or that. We would have open shooters, but had trouble delivering a decent assist.

I hate to say it for risk of sounding like some idiot AD, but we were playing with ehausted freshmen and it has been a long season. They just looked tired. It was a shame that we wasted a career game by Hollis.

herve, if I had to make a summary seasonal observation, it would be that we never really had a game where more than 2 guys had great games. I am hoping that we will have three or four guys play well per game net season. This fact both frustrates the hell out of me, but also gives me hope for net season. The fact that Taylor was a net positive is a leading factor for my optimism. He made some errors, for sure, but I can only hope that, net season, he will grow in those areas, as well.
3/17/2010 10:52:00 AM - Free Quebec - 5,843 posts (#2)
Yeah, Herve, but was that Taylor's mistake or Hobbs'.

I was planning to start a thread called "coaching" about how we mainly lost the game because we got out-coached, but obviously everyone else saw it, too. 

Let me just highlight a few things, many of which have been mentioned here already:

1) 31 games into the season and our team had no clue how to attack a zone. Even when the good players were in, the ball movement was slow and deliberate and the players seemed unsure of how to attack it.  And it's not like VCU's zone was anything special, we just didn't know what to do. Contrast that to VCU, who knew eactly how to attack our zone.  That was simply a better coached team beating a more talented team.

2) When the press was hounding Taylor, Hobbs' was slow to get a second ball handler in the game (Bynes), and didn't really adjust to have someone there to give him help.  This is especially crazy because in the first half, when we had guys back helping, we broke the press for some easy baskets.  But then we just stopped helping Taylor.

3) Hobbs has to be the worst special teams coach (out of bounds plays and end-of-game situations).  There were repeated plays where VCU was guarding the inbounds pass and we did nothing to try to get the ball in (let alone attack the basket off an in-bounds play). There were no screens, no cuts, no nothing.  There were even a couple of times where started with stacks and everyone spread out slowly, but with no real effort to get free (and didn't get free).  That was just terrible coaching.

4) Of course, the mass substitution when the 5 on the floor had all the momentum and had cut it to 2 -- that stalled all the momentum.

5) As mentioned above, there were multiple possessions - in both halves -- where we had no scorers on the floor sometimes we had only Dwayne Smith, who is basically our 5th scoring option, but a couple of times we didn't even have him.  Where eactly is a King, Opoku, Pellom, Bynes and Ware offense supposed to get points? 

6) Or how about late in the game, when Hobbs left katuka in during a key defensive possession (where he promptly fouled Sanders when we didn't need it), then subbed in Opoku while they were at the line? That might be the first coach who would ever go offense/defense late in the game with Katuka/Opoku, but with Opoku on offense and Katuka on defense.

7) I think this was mentioned above, but there was a point in the second half during our lull where we had 2 of the worst back-to-back possessions of the season. Pellom especially looked lost on them.  We were just completely lost against the zone.  Hobbs did realize it and put a couple of scorers at the scorer's table to come in.  When we got the ball back, I was calling for a time out to get some good players in the game becuase we desperately needed a score right there.  Instead, Hobbs lets it go one more possession, which predicatably results in a backbreaking turnover and dunk for VCU.  Of course Hobbs called the time out after that, but it was one possession too late (or two).

8) Sittingin the zone too long, instead of defending the three.  Sure Sanders might have eaten our bigs alive (as he did in the first couple of possessions), but we should be long and quick enough to give help in a man-to-man defense, while still recovering to contest shooters.  There doesn't seem to be any reason why, wiht our personnell that we should have to play zone against a team that can shoot -- especially when we eschew the zone against  a team like Duquesne that can't shoot.

9) Now i can also add to the list the quote from Hobbs about not really prepping the team for anyone but their two best players.  That's just terrible preperation.  Even I knew that their team was more than just two good players. That would be like preparing for GW by talking about Kromah and Hollis and not scouting Tony Taylor or Joe Katuka or Dwayne Smith.  I realize it was short notice, but that's a terrible job of preparing his team.



One other thing I want to add that isn't about coaching -- teams have to make shots.  I don't want to put it all on Brian Bynes, but he had two wide open threes (where he caught the ball in rhythm and didn't have a defender within 10 feet of him).  He missed both, and they were really demoralizing misses.  Guys have to make open shots, especially guards.   By contrast, VCU hit theirs in the first half.  I know we all think Joey Rodriguez is this amazing player because he lit it up from three last night (including one from Stanley Bonewicz range), but the guy shoots less than 33% on the year and is a turnover machine (including 8 last night). But Rodriguez hit shots last night.

And to make matters worse, Jamie Skeen and Troy Daniels, two guys who combined to make just 15 threes on the year in 50 attempts (30%), actually knocked down 4 of 8 last night.  

So while Bynes was missing open ones, their versions of Bynes were making theirs.  And aside from all the amazing coaching blunders, that becomes the difference in the game.

3/17/2010 11:53:00 AM - Dolphin Michael - 2,188 posts (#14)
FQ, Bynes has been worn down by the season more than any of the other freshmen, in my opinion. He was asked to do a lot. For fear of beating a dead horse, his strength was an issue. Who was it that said that the best thing about sophomores are that they aren't freshmen. With si freshmen in school, my hope is that, net season, three of them will come back with clearly better games, strength and floor vision.

I am more concerned about the program not eplaining why Edwards wasn't there, or Warren, for that matter--especially since we are all counting on contributions from those two net year. That shouldn't be sitting out there without a mention.

I am thankful that FINALLY, we had a senior produce his best effort in the last game. That was very welcome for the program.
3/17/2010 11:59:00 AM - LA Fan - 1,449 posts (#21)
Herve and LSF are both right.  TT does too much on his own to get the ball up the court.  I feel ehausted just watching him.  Our other 4 guys run up the court and stand waiting for him.  Then when TT gets there he doesn't do that much to create offense.  The top PG's have a great move to the hoop, are great passers, and can hit from outside (even 2 out of those 3 is good). 

I think TT is a solid passer, but he doesn't create anything.  Look at VCU's offensive sets - better coaching, better ball movement, and their pg found the shooters for wide open 3's that were drained.  Wasn't Hobbs a pg at UConn? 
3/17/2010 12:10:00 PM - Free Quebec - 5,843 posts (#2)
I think you are right, DM.  Bynes wore down.   He never showed all that much offense, though.  As LSF said to me last night, he's more of an athlete  than a basketball player (unlike, say, Johnson and Kromah, who seem to be both).

As for Taylor, there were at leeast 5 times last night where he did create and dish to a teammate, where the teammate simply blew the shot.  Can't fault TT for that.

lastly, want to say a positive thing about Katuka.  There was one play where he cut to the basket and took a pass and dunked it.  I think it was the first time I ever saw him actually cut to the hoop and catch a pass and finish.  Let's hope we see a lot more f that net year.

One final thought -- I hope the coach got more of this eperience than the players. It's clear that he needs to work on his attack against the zone (especially without Hollis to bail us out with one on one play) and he needs to work on out of bounds plays (would be nice if just once when we inbounds the ball, someone actually caught it going to the basket instead of away from it).   Improvement from Hobbs will be as important as improvement from the players.
3/17/2010 12:37:00 PM - Dolphin Michael - 2,188 posts (#14)
Forgive me for switching this conversation a bit to the "left," but I am wondering if you think, FQ, that GW should go ahead and sign a real point prospect, or work on developing Bynes as a backup point. Is he just too much of an ath. to make him a solid point?

I know that we are looking at a kid from DC area who is that "water bug" type of point. Would that leave us with too many guys playing guard? I don't think that Taylor's development would be hurt by using him at the two for stretches and attacking more and epending more energy while he is on the floor. Tony Taylor played a LOT of basketball this year.

The downside of close loss after close lose is that you can focus on a couple of boneheaded plays and say there was the W.
3/17/2010 12:46:00 PM - ravenfan - 4 posts (#245)
Idont think we will have to many guards net year with the new recruit. We are losing King  and who knows if Johnson and Edwards are staying ?
3/17/2010 1:05:00 PM - Free Quebec - 5,843 posts (#2)
Not really sure.  I guess I'd take anyone really good regardless of position. 

I do have related two thoughts on this question: 1) I think Hobbs' defensive system pretty much demands big guards, so I'm not sure whether we could ever really be successful with a sub-6' PG and Tony Taylor out there together for etended stretches; and 2) Hobbs' system of swinging the ball around the perimeter and letting guys go one on one doesn't necessarily demand (or allow for) a traditional pass-first PG.

On the specific question, we're going to need a replacement for Tony in two years, but I think it's up front where we have a more immediate problem.  Pellom looks a long way from being a guy who can replace Hollis, Katuka is a liability on defense and rebounding, and Edwards is basically useless right now (ecept for shot-blocking off the ball).  If we don't have any recruits stepping in, you could easily see that weak frontcourt negating any progress from our guards and wings net year.

Specifically on Bynes, I like him ok, but he seems more suited to a combo guard role than a pure PG.  I'd rather just give Taylor 30 minutes a game and cobble the rest between Bynes and Johnson.  I do like Bynes' defense, but as Tim Johnson gets stronger, I thnk he may be able ot play the same role as Bynes without sacrificing the offense.  That said, Bynes is a unique player -- with his incredible speed and ability to get all the way to the rim even in traffic from time to time -- so if Hobbs does a good job, he should be able to figure out how to get the most out of Bynes' talent.

If this were the NBA, I think the solution would be to trade one of our guards (probably Bynes) for a power forward -- there are plenty of teams that could use a defensive stopper-combo guard like Bynes, and we certainly have a glut in the backcourt.



Then again,  if it was up to me, our entire recruiting philosohphy would change and instead of recruiting the most athletic guys we can get, we would focus on skills -- guys who can shoot, take care of the ball, play defense, and play smart.  Really, mostly just guys who can shoot (of course, Hobbs couldn't coach that team).  I'm convinced that we'll never out-athlete the BCS teams so the way to pull off those upsets more frequently is to have a team that takes care of the ball, plays tough D, and always puts three shooters on the court at any time, like Richmond or St. Louis or Temple (or Butler, or Northern Iowa or St. Mary's or Cornell). 

More and more it seems crazy to me not to recruit more shooters (maybe Mikic and Kromah together solves this?) because college basketball so often seems to be about who can make shots. 
3/17/2010 1:44:00 PM - Dolphin Michael - 2,188 posts (#14)
FQ... interesting points. I think what we would both agree on is that we have a pretty balanced team with guys with pluses and minuses. If you add a guy, you got to take (supposed to) someone off the floor and we lose something. This is a good place to be.  Really we just need to take the summer off as fans and hope that the players get stronger and better in the off-season. PLUS, the coaching staff will have to come up with some additional tools to add that might push us over the W/L hurdle.

I don't think that there is a magic bullet. It will just be hard work and Hobbs has to evolve his game. Whether this is truly supported or not by the fan base, we are too far along the rebuilding path to pull the plug on Hobbs.

Above all, I'm with you on a 4. The coaching staff doesn't have to do much to make the point that a very good 4 in high school can pretty much make an instant case for PT with an otherwise strong team for the future. I don't know if that player is out there, but certainly, we have the slot.
3/17/2010 3:02:00 PM - thinker - 2,643 posts (#9)
Warren was on the bench in dress clothes.  Jabari was the only one missing.
3/17/2010 3:08:00 PM - bfan - 39 posts (#210)
Ravenfan...you mentioned in your post that we don't know if Johnson or Edward would be here net year.  Do you know something that we don't know?  Why would Johnson leave?  Why would Edwards leave?
3/17/2010 3:20:00 PM - Levinator - 1,532 posts (#20)

I think hobbs is the greatest coach ever

I think this version of the GW Colonials is the greatest team we ever had

I think Edwards, johnson and King are all staying since they love Hobbs and Matt Albritton has agreed to come back to GW too!

I think I taw a putty cat

Happy St Patty's Day to all

Wishing you and yours all the best this offseason

Lev 

3/17/2010 3:53:00 PM - seneca - 876 posts (#32)

This is the quote that some want to drive a truck through ...

“We were just so concerned about him and we talked about [guard Joey] Rodriguez, but we didn’t talk about the other guys – and we almost played like we never talked about the other guys,” Hobbs said. “But they did just a terrific job of making threes.”

Anybody who has ever been in a locker room before understands eactly what he was saying. His point was that if we stop Sanders and Rodriguez we have a good chance to win as they are the team's best players. I am sure they had a scouting report on everyone. In fact, I'd be willing to bet on it. It was a statement about what poison they were going to choose beforehand.They were prepared as well as you could be given two hours to get a scout in.

Nobody counted on a team that shot about 35% from 3-pt. range going 10-18 in the first half. Great job by them. We did a good job on Sanders and Rodriguez came back to earth in the second half.  They hit about 1.5 threes more than you would epect for the entire game. The difference overall last night was our inability to score not our defense. We shot 4-15 from 3-point range. We had inopportune turnovers and we had 4 possessions down 51-45 where we could not score. VCU was not playing great defense last night. We had plenty of opportunities that we couldn't capitalize on.

Hobbs played this game eactly right from the defensive end. If you want to be critical about something - the lack of a timeout at around the 6-7 minute mark where VCU opened up a little bit or a couple of the lineups he had out there (from an offensive perspective) would be far more reasonable. 

3/17/2010 4:00:00 PM - LA Fan - 1,449 posts (#21)
It's hard watching a couple of VCU's front-court players like Sanders and Skeen getting double-doubles last night and wishing we could get guys like them on our team.  If these guys are going to VCU can't we get players of their calibur at GW?  Where is our front-court recruiting? We had Hollis, Diggs and Regis over the last few years and that's it.
3/17/2010 4:28:00 PM - ravenfan - 4 posts (#245)

bfan ,

No i do not know anything about those guys leaving , it was mentioned once before in a post. Where someone said the hoped Johnson would stay. I dont remember who it was , but they said they wasnt trying to start any rumors. I was just asking if they were leaving thats all. Johnson was a little more laid back on the bench last night , and Edwards was a no show.

3/17/2010 4:37:00 PM - Mentzinger - 3,425 posts (#7)
LAFan, Sanders was a high-priority KH recruit ... and one of the rare instances I can think of where KH missed and the player didn't go to a high-major school, like John Tiller (Mizz), Corperryale "Manny" Harris (Michigan), Jon Leuer (Wisc.) and others.
Grenada, you're only the latest in a long line of idiots who come here claiming that only players or coaches can critique GW Basketball. Such criticisms, at least here, are usually delivered by anonymous program insiders motivated to cover up for some very obvious, embarrassing and intractible on-court problems for which they actually may be, in part, responsible. Is your ass on the line this off season?
In reality, KH-ball is so adolescent in its design and failure to mature that even a teenage dope fiend, or a message board poster who watches most GW games, could have a legitimate beef with it.
3/17/2010 5:21:00 PM - bobo - 2,991 posts (#8)

I guess Hobbs is listening to FQ now as the net recruit, Nemanja Mikic, seems to be more "skill" and less "athletic".  The problem with that is pure shooters have fared very poorly in Hobbs' system in the past: Wilmore, Collucci, Matty A.  Maybe if Mikic is truely 6"6' or above, he can succeed as a catch and shoot gunner on the perimeter.  But if he's more of a 6'3" shooting guard dependent on picks and screens to get open, I would not be too optimistic.

Hobbs has got to learn to be less stuborn about his offensive and defensive systems. VCU was clearly shreading his zone in the first half.  As Kvancz said at half-time, the problem wasn't just that VCU got hot but ALL THEIR SHOTS WERE WIDE OPEN.  But instead of adjusting his defense in the 1st half, Hobbs took the opportunity to scream at his players and assistants that they weren't eecuting his system correctly. True, they were not. They were late on rotations (Katuka and others) but that is not the time to lecture, its the time to adjust.  Scream at them in practice or in the locker room after the game but in game, Hobbs has to learn to keep his head and switch strategies on the fly.  He does a poor job of this.

On offense, Hobbs needs to realize that teaching an effective half-court offense is not one of strengths.  Its a poor system poorly run.  It seems that Hobbs cares more about the defense and fast break opportunities anyways.  He should find someone else on his staff to completely gut the eisting system and impliment an entirely new one in the off-season.  Very often, ast. coaches specialize in running an offense or defense and Hobbs would be smart to swallow some of his enormous pride and delegate to Ellerby (or someone else) on the half-court offense.  

GW needs to continue to improve net season so it may just save his job in the long run. 

3/17/2010 6:25:00 PM - Alumnus - 2,027 posts (#16)

So Seneca, is Hobbs unable to speak English, a liar, or unable to accept responsibility?  Or it's just loose talk because, hey, who cares whether the fans really know what I mean, they're just fans.  Or they should read my mind.  Or they should get that I walk on water, and even if I say something that sounds dumb, they should know that what I do is brilliant?   We didn't talk about anyone else.  In English, that means we didn't talk about anyone else.  I don't think he's a liar.  So that kind of leaves, it's my fault, either I gambled the ranch on winning if we shut down 2 players, or I missed the boat on the other guys, or something.  We played like we didn't talk about the others -- that's at best a vague passing of the buck to his players.  At worst, a blatant passing of the buck.  As you would point out, it's not the coachs' job to play -- and it's not the players' job to scout the other team or figure out how to play them.  So at best, he admitted to focusing too much on two players.  Is it likely that VCU won 20 games, and 11 in a decent conference, by almost-total reliance on 2 players? 

Plus, how many times do we have to get torched by hot 3-point shooters for more than the first few minutes of the game for him to say, throw out the stat sheet, these guys are hot, let's force them to do something else.  If Katuka had come out and made 4 or 5 quick baskets, would it have made sense for the VCU coach to say, shoot, everyone knows the scorers on the team are Hollis and Kromah, keep single coverage on him and we'll beat them by shutting down Hollis and Kromah?  This is what coaching is about -- adjusting.  I don't think you need to have spent time sniffing athletes' jocks to figure that out.   

3/17/2010 6:30:00 PM - The MV - 4,490 posts (#4)

First, let's get our facts straight.  There were two difficult offensive stretches for GW during the second half.  The first one which the original poster refers to came with GW down 51-49.  We had Tim, Travis, Herm, Dwayne and David on the floor.They were in the game for just over two minutes and while they looked woefully awkward on offense, they also didn't allow VCU to score during this stretch either.  KH put Damian, Lasan and Tony right back into the game.  The second and far more costly stretch involved VCU going on a 9-0 run to push a 4 point lead back to 13 over a slightly more than 4 minute period.  While we had some subs during the stretch, it was largely Travis, Lasan, Tony, Joseph and David on the floor during this run.

Now that that's out of the way, a bit on Hobbs.  No, I don't want him fired, but he does need to find some new ideas on both sides of the ball.  To suggest (as Seneca did) that we didn't lose this game on the defensive side of the ball is just crazy.  We fell behind by 17 points in the first half because VCU nailed one open 3 pointer after another.  While we cut that lead to two and a subsequent 13 point lead down to two, you can not undermine the amount of energy that gets sucked from a team when it has to play from behind.  Plus, in the case of both comebacks, we never actually came all of the way back.  So if you're talking about WHY we lost the game, I felt the biggest reason was that we were behind 17 in the first half.  And WHY that was was due to VCU's 3 point shooting in the first half.

I shake my head when I read or hear things like "you don't epect a team that shoots 35% from 3 for the season to go 10-18 in a half."  Yeah, one actually should epect that when their players are being left wide open.  I say this once a year so here it comes: any division 1 college player who even semi-regularly shoots 3 pointers has no greater opportunity in the college game than a wide open 3.  This is an easy shot; in fact, it seems it's an easier shot than a free throw.  Why?  Because these players religiously practice shooting 3's (unlike free throws).  The "2 guys chasing the ball" defense can only work if a defense is forcing close to 25 turnovers a game.  Otherwise, opponents are being given way too many opportunities to etend runs, change momentum, etc., simply by making wide open 3's.  VCU shot 1-9 from 3 in the second half.  Sure some of this was likely due to fatigue but a lot of this was because we changed up our defense in the second half and did a lot less of the "two guys chasing the ball routine."  Actually, for all of the crap that KH is taking today, this was a good halftime adjustment.  I only wish we hadn't started the way we had.

On offense, there is a lot of work to be done.  Dwayne Smith and Brian Bynes need to learn how to play more under control; David Pellom needs Rob Diggs to tutor him; Joe Katuka needs to learn how to better handle double-teams, etc., etc.  But more than individual skills, this team needs a new offense.  There is still way too much 5 guys standing around although this aspect did improve over the course of a season.  Passes are still too lackadaisical at times.  It is one thing to show poise and work for a good shot on offense.  It is quite another to fail to begin to even run your offense until the shot clock is under 15 or 10 seconds.  The one-on-one attempts too often turn into one-on threes.  Finally, there are more shooters on this team than meet the eye.  Everyone needs to work on shooting this off-season, and with some luck,  a new offense designed to free up shooters will be in place come October. 

 

3/17/2010 8:24:00 PM - thinker - 2,643 posts (#9)
I'm not an 's and o's guy.  But I was sitting with three guys that are involved in coaching basketball in HS/AAU.  I listened to their commentary.  Take Kromah out after his two huge plays?  Have that funky lineup twice where we had no one who could score on the floor?  The biggest thing is that when VCU went zone mid way through the second half - Hobbs made NO adjustment.  There was simply no answer.  End of the game time management - I was listening to these guys say "You don't need to foul, hit a three, then foul, then etc. etc."  At various points within the 2 minute mark they described the scenario that GW could win under and consistently GW did something that logically couldn't win them the game.  And no inbounds play?  I think we had 4 turnovers not being able to inbound the ball.  It was very disappointing.

Side notes:

Mentz - Saunders was from Collucci's hometown and was pretty set to come to GW.  Apparently what happened is that he decided that he just really wanted to play with Eric Maynor.

Further side note that I will probably repeat is about Tony Taylor.  I think the last run of games has revealed him to be less than a A-10 championship caliber PG.  Notwithstanding his ecellent Assist/Turnover ration, he simply is not strong enough or quick enough to bring the ball up the court under pressure NOR is he able to really pressure an opposing PG who is strong and quick on defense.  For the minutes he played, for eample, he had surprising few steals - Lasan had 62 steals in 761 minutes played, Bynes had 24 steals in only 527 minutes played.  TT had only 28 steals in 939 minutes.  He is seldomly aggressive enough on offense for my taste.

I think that the stronger quicker guards had their way with Tony.

For two years now he has CONSISTENTLY overpenetrated either directly into a defensive player or to a spot too deep under the basket.  He has had an inordinate number of attempted layups get blocked or get a foul without having had ANY chance of making the basket for a possible 3 - point play.
3/17/2010 10:08:00 PM - formerly Boston Pops - 338 posts (#67)

Wow!!

I'm impressed by the amount of discussion on this game.  kudos to FQ and DM for their analyses.  while i don't have their insights, i will nevertheless add some thoughts.

i did not see warren and i looked.  but i'll take thinkers word on that.  i would question what edwards absence portends.  without any source whatsoever, i wonder if he'll be back.

not enough credit has been given here to vcu.  they could have been the best team we faced all year.  we talk about A10 slights but vcu deserved a tournament bigger than this. 

i would have guessed the attendance was closer to 1200-1300.  about 50% was vcu.  by the way, a lot of their student body is from northern virginia and they were home on break.  a home and home would be a great idea.

i am not a kh fan.  nor do i write countless posts calling for his head. but he is a lousy in game coach, plain and simple. and has shown little improvement as he's gotten more eperienced.  he is however, a better than average recruiter (the immediate aftermath of the Post's eposes ecepted).  could a better in-game coach won that game for us?  maybe.  the wholesale substitution during the 2nd half run and his inability to react to vcu pressure were game changers.  but the fact remains vcu was better than us and deserved the win.  (the only eception being rodriquez's 3 point attempt down the stretch which could easily have cost them the game.)

it wasn't just the freshmen making bad passes.  king and ware contributed in that regard.  while i too like ware's heart, he has little upside at this level. 

this was not a good matchup for katuka.  they were just too physical, too big for katuka and i think there will be matchups like this net year he wont be well suited to.

great performance for hollis to go out on.

Mason had a 27 point lead in the 2nd half last nite. and lost?

3/17/2010 10:19:00 PM - Andrew - 257 posts (#84)
I was fairly impressed with the near-comeback last night, and pretty pleasantly surprised about the game.

Watching the game, it was obvious that GW was considerably more talented than a 23-win VCU team.  If you replace half of the dumb shots, missed Js, anked layups, etc. with sensible shots, then GW wins this game -- and that isn't a matter of coaching, it's a matter of eperience.  Net year, GW wins this game easily.

The biggest coaching issues I saw were:  (1) GW's awful first-half zone, and (2) GW's utter failure to bo out rebounds.  Admittedly, those are pretty significant issues -- but I guess I see the glass as a lot more than half-full right now.
3/18/2010 12:08:00 AM - Dolphin Michael - 2,188 posts (#14)
Mike K... on the run, I believe that it was Bynes and not Johnson. Hobbs actually put Johnson on the floor for Bynes at about the point where we started to again creep back in the game. At the net stoppage after that sub, it was Taylor for King.
3/18/2010 12:20:00 AM - Long Suffering Fan - 3,625 posts (#6)
Thank you for pointing out the end of game management deficits of the coach, Thinker.  I said the same thing last night as I have said repeatedly.  We are down 3, VCU has theball and there is about 47 seconds left.  You don't need to foul.  You need to play 35 seconds of defense, then get the ball back with plenty of time to set up a game tying 3 point shot.  You then have control of the outcome.  Instead we foul, as KH has down repeatedly in similar situations all season.  One made free throw turns it into a 2 possession game, and thatis eactly what happened (actually VCU made both).  As a result,we never would regain possession of the ball with an attempt to tie.  As far as the substituting an entire unit that is playing well in favor of an offensively challenged 5, all I can say is why?  Look, coach, I know you drew up these very nice substitution patterns prior to the game and I am sure that they made sense in the locker room 30 minutes before tipoff, but you got to be able to think on your feet during the game.  You don't have to be a genius to recognze that Kromah is a streak scorer and he happened to be on a streak at that time. Why, why why did you pull him, yet alone the others?
3/18/2010 1:05:00 AM - Andrew - 257 posts (#84)
LSF, I saw that play differently than you did.  With 47 seconds left, GW tried to deny the inbound, set up the press, played tough D -- and VCU penetrated it anyway.  Then, rather than give up an easy 2 underneath, and ONLY THEN, did the team foul.

I thought they played the end game well.  And if that last Hollis 3 goes in....
3/18/2010 4:01:00 AM - Bigfan - 2,562 posts (#11)

Seneca Seats' words: "Nobody counted on a team that shot about 35% from 3-pt. range going 10-18 in the first half."

If they hadn't, it wouldn't be a GW game. 
We should pay  $60.000 for a team that hits their normal 3 point shooting average.
But somehow, we make most every team three-point shooting stars. Just coincidence.
  Karl Hobbs will never learn. Never adjust his preconceived notions.
He gets $600,000 a year no matter what and he will do it his way. We did  fight our way to 10th place and a losing CBI invitational game against a CAA opponent, who's fans, as someone above pointed out, felt comfortable and unthreatened by basketball fortunes in the Smith Center to taunt us.
  Meanwhile, Hobbs, one of the A-10's longest serving coaches, got outcoached (as usual) by a 32 year-old beginner.

3/18/2010 8:40:00 AM - Free Quebec - 5,843 posts (#2)
Yeah, LSF and I debated it during the game.   Normally I would agree with him -- down 3 with 47 seconds left, you should play good defense and get the ball back with about 10-12 seconds left. 

However, the problem is that with GW down three and basically trying to set up a last shot, I have no confidence at all that Hobbs could draw up a play that would free someone for a three (and that would go in).  Most likely, it would wind up with Hollis forcing something or trying to get fouled (like the Richmond game where he did draw the obvious foul, but the ref still refused to call it). 

So for most teams I would say, yes, don't foul there.  But for a Karl Hobbs-coached team, you almost have to go for the steal and then foul because there was no way in hell he was going to come up with a successful play to get us a three.
3/18/2010 10:03:00 AM - seneca - 876 posts (#32)

Anybody care to talk about the three-point shooting of VCU in the second half? Since they were 10-18 in the first, they went 1-9 in the second. I'd like to say that was an adjustment but it really wasn't - many of those threes were just as wide-open as the first half or just as contested as the first half - and that is the point not all the 3's were as uncontested in the first as some would lead you to believe here. Rodriguez for eample missed at least 3 wide-open ones.  If we are solely going to be results-oriented crowd then you all need to own up to that. My point is water finds its mark and as a coach you have to play percentages and matchups. What did VCU shoot for game? 40.7% with an unconscious first half.

Sanders was our worst matchup coming in then Rodriguez. Yes you might get burned playing percentages but that is how games are won and lost by MOST college coaches. What some of you guys really don't understand is the notion that the other guys get "paid" too. We decided to double-down on Sanders and pack in a zone. I'm sure had we denied up on the perimeter and etended the zone more and Sanders had 15 in the first half some of you clowns would have been hollering doesn't Hobbs know that Sanders is their best player? It's an absolutely no win situation unless of course we win - then it's Hobbs is a good coach. I've never seen a more outcome-determinative group in my life.

There aren't a lot of secrets in this game and if your team shoots 10-18 in a half from three you look pretty good. Conversely, if you shoot 4-15 for the entire game generally you are in trouble.

And MV, you really need to get out more and watch some basketball. Our defense did not lose the game for us at least not that night. Against another team maybe so. Our problem was our inability to score at critical times with lineups that were inacapable of scoring based on personnel combinations. We also shot poorly, especially in the first half. We play the very same overall defense and shoot somewhat better, we win. Even with our poor shooting we were in the game. Apparently, you don't grasp that so what can I say?  And nobody is worried about the threes.

Sure Hobbs has his flaws at times, there isn't a coach who doesn't. But I've never seen anyone dissected to the degree he is with less than all of the facts or a parsing of something he said without the full contet.

3/18/2010 11:13:00 AM - bobo - 2,991 posts (#8)

Seneca,

GW came played zone in the first half but came out in man to start the 2nd. Hobbs did adjust. Unfortunately, he just did so too late.  I don't think anyone has a problem with Hobbs backing the zone to start the game to combat Sanders.  VCU was up 23-19 at the 9:00 minute mark already hitting four 3pts.  Smart had taken Sanders out at this point but Hobbs stuck with the trapping half-court zone.  VCU continued to shread Hobbs' trap zone - going up by 17 at one point and hitting 6 more 3pts to end the half.  THEN Hobbs made the defensive adjustment.  Too late.

If you believe that Hobbs is subject to too much undue criticism, you just do not follow college basketball closely or have never visited any other basketball message board.  Phil Martelli, Brian Gregory, Bobby Lutz and many others get killed on thier boards as well. 

I find it hard to deny the arguement that Hobbs' trap zone D got distroyed in the first half (as it has too often this year) and his wheel/motion/4 men on the perimeter half court offense has not been particularly effective for the last 3 years.  Maybe you disagree? 

3/18/2010 12:17:00 PM - seneca - 876 posts (#32)

Bobo if you think that Hobbs was happy about all those threes going in and saying we've got them where we want them you'd be wrong. My point is they made the shots and some of the kids that made them usually don't make them as FQ pointed out above. At this level you have to give up something. Players are too good and VCU is too good in the post just to play straight man. In fact, we came out playing man and switched to a zone if I recall. We did play some man intermittently. Some of the threes they made were contested. Plus we don't do a real good job of handling ball screens in man as Rodriguez was able to effectively use those in the 2nd half - we were lucky he didn't hit the shots or maybe we weren't - maybe it was as I said water finding its level. Also, since none of us were in the huddle nobody knows what he said about the threes in the first half.

Now if you want to talk offense, I would agree we need to do some different things as far as personnel patterns and offenses. That's a whole different discussion.

As far as the criticism levelled at coaches I am fully aware of it. I just think here that some of it is nonsensical. As I said there are things that Hobbs could do better so obviously he is going to get criticism fior those things. But what happens on this board is that every game is a referendum on his coaching ability. To me it is much like the NCAAs - look at the body of work. Coaches, like players, do have off nights. Sometimes, those off nights may cause games to be lost and sometimes they don't. But the funny thing is I've never heard anybody come on here once and say Hobbs outcoached the other guy. Maybe I missed it. If he loses games, he must have the power to win them too.

3/18/2010 12:21:00 PM - The MV - 4,490 posts (#4)

Seneca, what Bobo just said about the adjustments is eactly right and echos what I had written.  As for having an offensively challenged line-up, we had one just once the entire game, with GW down 51-49, and that group of five played a little more than two minutes of clock time before three players were subbed with the score still 51-49.  Maybe you can enlighten me as to other five player combinations we had on the floor that were offensively challenged.

And just to summarize, GW fell behind by 17 points, largely due to our inability to cover three point shooters, never tied or took the lead the rest of the game, and you think that I'm wrong in saying that we lost the game because of this?  If you don't fall behind by 17 and are forced to play catch-up the rest of the game, perhaps your offensive woes wouldn't be so terrible since your team would be far less worn out under different circumstances.  No, what you are saying makes far, far more sense.  We lost because we fielded a lineup for 2 minutes that couldn't score, even though that unit didn't allow VCU to score during those 2 minutes either.

3/18/2010 1:17:00 PM - seneca - 876 posts (#32)
MV, it was a 6-point lead with 15:15 to play and a 3-point lead with about 10 1/2 to play. What happened in the first half was immaterial at that point. It was anybody's ball game, But we had two significant stretches without Hollis and Kromah on the floor that killed us. Taylor was off the floor as well in the earlier one. I believe Hollis was off the floor for about 6 minutes in the last 15. Kromah and Taylor probably anywhere from 3-4 minutes each. We can't score unless two of those three are on the floor. That is what ultimately decided the game all the other stuff was secondary.
3/18/2010 4:30:00 PM - danjsport - 1,182 posts (#26)
Seneca-

I disagree with your assessment that the massive lead that GW had to overcome in the first half was insignificant, because it was close in the second half.  GW had to work and utilize all sorts of energy to bring the game close before halftime.  That amount of energy is not replaced, and ultimately leads to mental errors, the need to try to give guys an etra 30 second breather down the stretch (which leads to an offensively stagnant lineup, and a lead that blows up, because the media timeout is not called sooner), and tired defense.  The 17 point defecit, caused by 10-18 shooting in the first half, played a huge role in the game.
3/18/2010 5:19:00 PM - seneca - 876 posts (#32)

danjsport - right idea wrong game. We didn't epend too much energy coming back because first of all we came back gradually - first at the end of the 1st half to cut it to 12 and then five minutes into the game to cut it to 6 and then five minutes later to cut it to 3. Then VCU went on a run to increase the lead to 13 which we again cut to 3 with 14 seconds left. If we had epended all that energy to get the lead from 17 to 3 how did we have enough energy left to get the lead down from 13 to 3 in the last five minutes?

This was not some furious comeback attempt from 17 late in the game - this was a game of several runs by both teams. It was essentially a even game at the 10 minute mark of the 2nd half. Again, our runs were not sustained enough or long enough to win partly because our best offensive players were on the bench either too much (Hollis) or all together. Against VCU the problem wasn't 79, it was 73. We make 2 more 3's on the evening and shoot 40% from 3 and it's a tie game and no one cares about the 10 3's in the first half.

Would I prefer we didn't give up the 10 3's absolutely! But in the end we lost the game for other reasons.

3/18/2010 5:50:00 PM - newtman - 1,252 posts (#25)
seneca,if the first big run didn't drain em then the second run did.  it happens almost all the time the comeback falls short as the team runs out of gas. but not GW not this time.  not why we lost. KH focused too much attention on Sanders & Rodriguez.  but Sanders only played 24 minutes due to foul trouble. did he have a plan for the 16 minutes Sanders was on the bench?
3/18/2010 7:38:00 PM - The MV - 4,490 posts (#4)

Seneca, so now you know eactly how much energy was put into these comebacks, and you're assuring us that it wasn't too much to be considered the cause for the loss?  Do us all a big favor...if you really, truly aren't Blue Seats, stop acting like him.

3/18/2010 7:59:00 PM - seneca - 876 posts (#32)

I get it now MV, when you have nothing substantitive to say you blame your alter ego.

3/18/2010 9:22:00 PM - The MV - 4,490 posts (#4)

Seneca, I appear to be making the same or similar points as Alumnus, Bobo, Danjsport, and Newtman on this thread.  Interestingly, your point seems to be backed up by nobody.  Nothing you're not used to, I'm sure.

3/18/2010 9:53:00 PM - seneca - 876 posts (#32)

MV, you've already more than amply proven that you shouldn't give up your day job for basketball analysis. In fact, I'm not sure you really have a day job given the number of times you post here. But whether you do or don't, I don't form opinions based on what everyone or anyone else thinks. And I think we are talking about opinions here aren't we? Unless of course you'd like to tell us how we are discussing facts. I guess dissenting opinions are not allowed. Now stop channeling your inner Blue Seats.

3/18/2010 10:05:00 PM - danjsport - 1,182 posts (#26)
I like when Blue Seats/Mailvan/The MV fights with Blue Seats/Seneca over who is Blue Seats. 

As far as the issue at hand- I disagree with Seneca, but understand his point.  I think GW used too much energy to come back.  I think Hobbs didn't focus enough on the "when we drop into zone to stop sanders, VCU is going to do and we need to stop it by doing Y."  He said as much.  I think even incrementally coming back from down 17 takes energy.  It requires "etra" focus on defense.  It requires "etra" thought on offense, so as not to take t he wrong shot- lest Hobbs pulls you.  The reality is that the team got outplayed, the coach got outcoached, and the better team won.
3/19/2010 3:46:00 AM - Bigfan - 2,562 posts (#11)
And outcoached by a comparative coaching babe in the woods.
You don't really need eperience to outcoach Karl Hobbs.
3/20/2010 10:06:00 AM - squid - 1,426 posts (#23)

Seneca and MV -- why don't you start your own thread instead of bitching at each other all the time. It gets really old, really quick. Are you guys enemies from childhood or something?

Click here to download android app from Google Playherve@earthlink.net