My two cents.  This is all about trust.  The players must learn to trust each other on both ends of the floor.  As the trust in each other grows, so will the quality of play on both ends.  And we will see more wins.

In his last 2 games, Maceo Jack has shot 10-12 from the field, including 4-6 from the 3, yet does not start and is only is on the Court for 17 minutes vs. Delaware.   And only 1 of the teams combined 33 turnovers were by Jack.  Did I also mention that he is one of the few seniors on the team?   I would say that perhaps the coach has written off this season and wants to give the playing time to his players of the future, however Moyer (who I happen to think is a nice player) has played 62 minutes in that 2 game stretch, so that isn't it.   I also believe that Jack's defense, while hardly good, has improved over the years and is certainly no worse than the players that are on the court.  Maybe he just doesn't fit into the system.

keithgreene wrote:

My two cents.  This is all about trust.  The players must learn to trust each other on both ends of the floor.  As the trust in each other grows, so will the quality of play on both ends.  And we will see more wins.

Correct Keith. These guys did not have an offseason to play pick-up and learn about each other's strengths and weaknesses as players  Controlled practices are not always best for that. As a result, they are learning together on the fly. I suspect we get better soon. There were signs of it yesterday but there is a lot going on that needs to be fixed. Our half court defense was better. The big thing that is killing us is the turnovers. If we even eliminated 4 or 5 each game, we probably are 4-1 or 5-0 right now. The reason being is that's less scoring opportunities for us and we are giving up huge points off of turnovers. That's got to get fixed before almost anything else. 

A few words about Bishop...after a strong first half, he missed his last 8 shots from the field including a costly turnover.  I understand that a point guard with a scorers mentality is going to keep on trying to score and arguably should not be discouraged by the coaching staff.  But, it is up to James himself to understand how to get his teammates more involved when his shots are not falling.  Right now, he strikes me as a more talented version of Jair Bolden.  It's great that he has a shot and knows how to take it to the hole.  But when defenses key on him, or he's just cold, he has to get others involved.  This comes down to decision making.  

Incidentally, one of the benefits of having more depth this season compared to last is that we don't have to "over-play" starters.  This ought to be largely determined by who brought their game one night and who didn't.  Case in point, Battle and Bishop combined for 9-29 shooting with 10 turnovers over 62 minutes of play.  Jack, Brelsford, and Seymour combined for 6-10 shooting (5-7 from 3) and zero turnovers over 40 minutes of play.   

It's one thing when your bench can't perform anywhere close to your starters but it's another thing when the bench is playing as if it is more than capable.

The player rotations make me wonder whether JC is making decisions based on what he may have told certain players during the recruiting stage rather than what's necessarily best for the team right now.  It would make sense that he would tell Bishop he is just what this team needs and that he will play a great deal.  Same for Moyer.  He never recruited Maceo.  The freshmen could each have been told that they'd have the chance to compete for minutes but not to be disappointed if they didn't receive many (unlike last year when freshmen played out of necessity).

So above all else, what I'd like to start seeing are players playing based on merit alone.  That can and should vary from game to game.  JC and staff need to start thinking about what it will take, each game, to give GW the best chance to win.  If Bishop and Battle go cold, should they automatically be on the court at crunch time, because they are capable?  Or, should others who are performing well in a given game be afforded this opportunity?  The former does not seem to be working.  Maybe it's time to try the latter. 

Doesn’t anyone else find it peculiar that after saying we would be playing only the zone, a very short time later zone appears to be completely abandoned and we play almost exlsively a man to man?

Free Quebec wrote:

Long Suffering Fan wrote:

Doesn’t anyone else find it peculiar that after saying we would be playing only the zone, a very short time later zone appears to be completely abandoned and we play almost exlsively a man to man?

I don’t think anyone who watched our zone would find it peculiar that we stopped playing it.

Yes, and everyone would be on JC for not making adjustments if we continued to play the same zone in the same way. The fact that JC recognizes that sometimes the best laid plans aren't working and is willing to change is a positive sign not a negative one.

That would be a revolutionary thought of adjusting defenses.
Not sure recognizing the zone wasn't working after losing 3 games to lesser teams is a positive thing,other than finally waking up to the very obvious.