I do agree with you! (and me, lol)
I guess we'll see what everyone else thinks.
I'm sort of at a loss how Walker can go from no minutes at all, to 35 minutes, TBH I was a little more bearish on him than you are, he had a few plays where he got totally lost on defense, he couldn't in bound in 5 seconds, he threw away a ball to no one, it looked like some understandable game 1 nerves.  
As for Mazz and Mezie, why didn't they play more? I don't quite get any of that.
I'm all for the best 5 on the court, or match-up driven decisions, just trying to make sense of everything you laid out.  I'm personally not being critical just perplexed! never seen anything quite like it, game to game!

The only rational explanation for me is that OOC is a total learning experiment and wins don't matter.  And while I'm all for development, as someone who attends the games, winning by two instead of 10 is a better alternative than losing these types of games.  

Agree 100% with all of what is being said here, especially jf who echoes my thoughts quite a bit.

There are two problems I see right now, 1) the lack of a go-to guy, and 2) the lack of identity.

1) While our team has a bunch of guys who would probably be a good sixth man on a good A10 team as third and fourth options, no player has screamed 'go-to' guy yet this season. JC figures to groom JNJ to one, but he is still too young and inexperienced to do that at this stage (although we have seen flashes). Each player brings something different to the table, but unfortunately those strengths don't fully fit together. While I'm glad we are spending some time during OOC play to see exactly what we have currently, we can play guys a certain number of minutes without going too extreme from game-to-game (as others have mentioned here, Shawn going from DNP to 35 minutes, Javier going from 6 minutes in game 1 to suddenly starting in game 2, etc). In the past under ML, we would bring in new guys and let them play up to a media timeout (maybe 4 minutes or so) and then bring back a well-defined rotation. This leads to the question - who should be in the 'well-defined rotation' if we were to play that way?

I don't see either Jamison or Maceo's minutes go down entering conference play as they figure to be the two guys who can make threes at (hopefully) a decent clip moving forward. I wonder what the stats look like in terms of how many minutes they have played together - playing only one at a time makes it easier for defenses to key in one guy who is a known threat. Much like Sloan his freshman year, neither contributes much apart from their designated catch and shoot roles (Jamison has shown to be a bit better on the rebounding front early on though).

AT of course starts if he's healthy, if he's out then Javier steps into the starting lineup. Playing both together is poor for spacing, so probably not the best strategy under JC's bomb from 3 scheme. Do they split up the minutes, does AT see 3/4 of them? JC said during postgame that he doesn't think AT's injury to be serious (thankfully) and that he's day-to-day, but does his minutes go down a bit to keep him healthy? Maybe a separate discussion. Ace can eat up some minutes in the first half, but probably doesn't see much in the second half unless we are in need of guys up front. Or could Chase could suddenly suit up and lead the A10 in minutes played? (joking about the last one, but honestly not outlandish given how crazy the rotations have looked so far) 

That leaves the point and 4 positions. Jameer probably continues to start at point, but what to do at 4? The reason Mezie has been starting (up until today - another head-scratching moment) is that he probably gives the team the best chance of spacing out the floor. However, the limitation here is that Mezie does not have three point range, so our spacing is still somewhat compromised. Amir's arrival makes this more confusing as well. He didn't take a single three at Nebraska, but could he play point forward given his unique size? He also seems to have an injury history so his minutes will have to be capped as well.

We then have Justin and Armel, who both seem to be better options at point than anywhere else. JC tried Justin off the ball in game 1, and that went poorly. I still think we are better served having them split minutes with JNJ off the ball, which may lead to more highlight plays like that Armel to JNJ play we saw in the game. That could also just as easily be Justin to JNJ, as Mazzulla has shown to cut down on his turnovers. In crunch time, Justin's defensive ability gives him the nod over Armel. 

That leaves Juice and Shawn. While I do think Shawn needs to add some strength, I was pleasantly surprised by his first game. He gave us many of the grit plays that we are used to seeing from Juice. That is not to say that Juice should ride the pine though. As I have said in the recaps, I just haven't seen Juice play down low. While that might not work for long stretches, I think that is something we could try moving forward. He does have three point range, although that stroke is a bit funky. The lack of a good stretch 4 is part of what is hurting this offense. Still hoping Javier can make his threes, but there is no proof he can yet.

So I'll say start something like Armel, JNJ, Maceo, Juice, and AT. In crunch time, replace Armel with Justin. Jamison is the sixth man and replaces Juice in crunch time. Javier replaces AT for stretches. Ace sees some action in the first half to spell AT/Javier. Mezie replaces Juice for stretches, just don't think he has enough yet to bring something during crunch time (although his defense is promising).

Shawn seems like the odd man out, but I don't know that he has a well "defined" enough role to get minutes as we shorten rotations. If Chase gets back healthy and can make threes (he did show he could in Kenner) maybe he takes some of Javier/Juice's minutes. If Amir returns healthy, he replaces either Armel or Juice in the starting lineup. But again, this is going under the expectation that we play that many guys. Does the rotation shorten to 7-8 guys during conference play? This leads me to:

2) the lack of identity. This team could play more guys if we develop more of an identity with pressure defense. For all the 'Mayhem' talks, the defense has been almost as baffling as the rotations. The few times we've trapped we haven't looked half bad. Do we apply more full court pressure? Can we increase our ball pressure along the perimeter? We look timid and unprepared on that end. Do we shift to zone more to prevent guards from driving to the hoop? This might hurt our chances of pulling down a rebound and running. Offensively, we have enough guards and athleticism to probably push a bit more that would help the offense out a lot. We tend to be stagnant on offense playing in the halfcourt, much like last year. Siena with Pickett at point was simply much better about not turning the ball over, but they also weren't overly athletic so playing slow made sense. JNJ has the edge in athleticism, but is not as sound with hanging on to the ball. I do think we are better served pushing off a miss (since this team can't generate turnovers) which may give us threes in transition as well. But all this starts with the defense. I wasn't that surprised that Morgan State dominated the glass tonight given their identity, but also because JC's teams have historically been terrible in defensive rebounding. AT has disguised that somewhat given his elite rebounding ability. JC has said he wants to play through the post more, but right now AT and Javier have served as garbage collectors on offense to salvage missed shots (moreso AT than Javier). The times our guards have tried to feed our bigs, we have turned the ball over more often than not. Can we establish the post more? Simply gunning from 3, not making them, and spacing the floor poorly, while being stagnant in the halfcourt doesn't strike me as a clear identity. Additionally, it's not a winning strategy for consistent success - when the threes don't fall, it's essential to get to the hoop, draw fouls, and get to the line to get some points up on the board. JC's strategy means fewer trips to the line. This team looks lethargic and needs to show more energy on the court which has been missing as well. 

Last edited by dmvpiranha (11/16/2019 11:22 pm)

Shawn Walker looked to me (it was just one game) like Javi year 1, a guy who down the road could be useful but probably shouldn't be getting big minutes on a A10 team.  Watching his first couple of minutes I thought "oh I see why he had 3 straight DNPs" and then we saw him play the entire half and 35 minutes in the game. Clearly since he started, that was for some reason the game plan.  
I'm more of a bull of on JNJr, I can live with growing pains, I like what we're seeing there (100% though, a work in progress) but I feel his TO stats are a little worse looking than reality.  
We've seen Mazz playing 33 capable minutes a night as the PG in A10 action, he's not great but he's better than a lot of what we saw today, its hard to understand his minutes being cut back so severely.  He's got poise, and experience two things severely lacking out there today. If Juice is getting this much run because he plays hard, I don't see why Mazz isn't.
Speaking of, Morgan St played a lot harder than we did.  I can tolerate a really bad team, not the half effort, guys not in defensive stances, guys not playing defense with much heart etc.  This team has basically no one good enough to coast out there.  I've been one of the few Potter fans but he in particular looked lackluster in his effort on D.  Never see that one play from Mazz.   Maceo played with a little passion, but mostly it looked like guys playing pick up.  
Did we play any zone at all? that team couldn't shoot and we have Javi the long big with AT out in serious foul trouble, maybe some zone was in order.  
Jamison. I like his game, his feet aren't that quick so his defensive skills I believe may always be limited and some of his offense but he has size and a great looking stroke.

Lastly, don't get me wrong I think the primary issue is the skill of the personnel, not the rotation or PT, but it has been the oddest I can recall seeing.  Did anyone expect to see a struggling Shawn Walker get 35 minutes in game 4, the first minutes of his collegiate career?


 

Posted this in another thread, In light of Mazz and Mezie playing time, or lack of it, perhaps JC is laying the groundwork for MoJo's guys to transfer and bringing in more of his own guys.

Mike K wrote:

Posted this in another thread, In light of Mazz and Mezie playing time, or lack of it, perhaps JC is laying the groundwork for MoJo's guys to transfer and bringing in more of his own guys.

That seems highly unlikely.  He has a reputation as a player’s coach and I doubt he would ruin that reputation with passive aggressive games like that, especially this early in he season.

My guess he’s giving guys long run to see what he has. Mezzie was a role player off the bench until game 2 and 3 when he suddenly started and played tons of minutes, so maybe now he’s just trying to see what he has in Walker, especially after Mezzie gave up the game winner (without fouling) vs AU? 

Still trust thus successful coach to figure it out but it’s times like this when I wish we had actual beat reporters to report on stuff like this.

I definitely don't think JC is trying to force them out. JC actually offered Mezie his first scholarship in D1 while still at MSM so he has more familiarity with Mezie than most on the team, so I'm sure the trust is there - especially since Mezie has started three games already this season. Justin isn't being forced out either, but like I said in the recap, it looked like he yelled at Mazzulla when he went out in the first half and he didn't return after that. Won't read too much into it because it's probably just a missed assignment or something. Agree with FQ that he is still very much just playing around with rotations.

It's fine that JC rewarded Shawn with a start if he had a good couple weeks of practice. Let him see extended time in the first half. However, I think after halftime it probably made sense to go back to the guys who will likely see more time when the rotations tighten, especially during crunch time. Down the stretch I think we made a few mistakes:

1) JC didn't call a timeout until we got down 10. I think he's done a good job on that front so far, but he waited too long at that point, especially how late in the game it happened.

2) There was enough time left on the clock for us to get to the hoop and then foul Morgan State to extend the game at least one more possession. The Bears were shooting FTs well, but came in 55%. If they make both, it's still a three point game. If they make neither or just one, that's less pressure on the team to make a three (and this team is only shooting 27% so far from deep - 292nd nationally). 

3) I actually thought we drew up a well designed play to go for the three out of the timeout, but as mentioned previously Shawn taking the shot (even being on the floor) was definitely questionable. We needed to find a way to free Jamison or Maceo. I would have even preferred JNJ to take it. He's been bad on threes to begin the year, but after his layup late in the game against American, I feel like he's more trustworthy to take the shot if Jamison or Maceo can't get open late in the game. We could have had Justin or Mezie come into the game, but I'm not sure I'd be confident having them take that shot either.  

But yeah, it definitely seemed at times that we weren't actually trying to win the game which was confusing.
 

Relax. Take a deep breath everyone. There is lots going on under the surface. You see only the tip of the iceberg on gameday.

We were a 9 win team a year ago and lost 2 of our top 3 scorers. The cupboard is largely bare as far as established go to guys. The players at several spots are also largely equal so he is likely trying different rotations early to figure out what he has and does not have. Expect this to continue until we establish a clear 5 that work well together and a regular rotation of subs. Some are better matchups for certain games. I like that competition for playing time means you need to bring it every night.

I could care less about wins and losses this year. I also don't buy the humiliating loss. We are clearly rebuilding and this is what happens when you are rebuilding out of a very deep hole. Would you really feel that much better if we had scored 7 more points over 2 games and stood at 3-1 versus 1-3? Would we really be that different of a team or would be that much farther along on the path to recovery as a program? This season is more about establishing program culture and finding out who can help and who can't.

I want JC to get this right for the long haul and if he has to experiment early, I am not at all worried about that 4 games in.

SMH over not caring about wins and losses this year.  Agreed that there's no real point in hanging on the edge of your seat, worrying about how our team metrics compare to bubble teams.  However, this is basketball, they keep score for a reason, and wins and losses always matter, even if they may carry greater significance in some years versus others.  Would I feel better if this team was 3-1 having scored 7 more points?  No-brainer.  Of course I would.  At least we would see that the team, both the players and the coaching staff, kept their poise and came through in clutch situations.  

If losing consecutive home games to AU and Morgan State isn't humiliating, then this team is simply incapable of being humiliated.  I would also de-emphasize the "we lost our top two scorers from last year" excuse.  Sadly, DJ was not a team player and Terry regressed from year 1 to year 2 to become a somewhat misguided player, content to work on his 23 foot jump shots each game.  Losing two guys who missed a lot of important shots should not exactly be insurmountable.

One more point, home wins against AU and Morgan State would not have exactly constituted a quick turnaround in my book.  These are simply two teams that GW should have beaten at home no matter the rotations or injuries.  I don't look at this as my being unfairly harsh.

Gwmayhem wrote:

Would I feel better if this team was 3-1 having scored 7 more points?  No-brainer.  Of course I would.  At least we would see that the team, both the players and the coaching staff, kept their poise and came through in clutch situations.  

There are two sides to this. 

Winning begets winning.  Simply put, building up confidence in a weak OOC may get the team to gel faster and outperform expectations. 

On the other hand, Fordham entered conference play last year 9-4 after a schedule of low level MAAC and SWAC schools and then preceded to go 3-15 (though it did include a home win against us ugh).  In that case, winning against cupcakes did nothing for them in the grand scheme of things once conference play started.

I think I fall on the side of GWmayhem that if we are scheduling low level D1 opponents in the non-conference then we need to be beating them.  If results don't matter, we should've just been cannon fodder for P5 schools and try to make a little cash playing away games.