A few more thoughts on yesterday's loss. 

1) Yesterday's blowouts was mostly about generating no offense. Down 24-21 with a chance to tie just under 8 minutes left in the first half, we went roughly the next 17 minutes with only 2 FG.  As the hole got deeper and deeper, the lack of offense spilled over onto the defensive side of the ball, especially with such a thin lineup against a solid offensive team.     

2) No Armel Potter: 2/3 of the way through the season, it's clear that we have only one guard who can help run our offense from the point.  In a system designed to take as many three as possible, you need a point guard who can penetrate from the top and cause defenses to collapse into the lane.  Right now, he is the only one capable of making that initial penetration on a consistent basis--which keeps other a bit more honest on guarding perimeter shooters.  Against weaker competition, Potter can score on the penetration, but he is not the best finisher, which is highlighted against better opponents who can fill the lane.  Still, his ability to penetrate opens open more opportunities from the outside. 

Walker doesn't have that skill set and Jameer still struggles with ball handling at the top of the key--especially when teams double him up.  If Jameer is allowed more space, he can drive and get shots--some of the acrobatic variety, but that part of his game is still an open question for me--and he seems more suited to the 2.      

As you've watched these past few games, we are now well-scouted and the opponents' have denied good lucks from the three and played Battle close at the perimeter and challenging our guards to consistently beat them on penetration.  And our present guards are simply not up to the task at this point--or ever???  Note that when Potter went out against Davidson, they never really changed much on D to challenge our other guards--which may have been their ultimate downfall. 

3) The Freshman Wall: The freshman wall is real--in terms of the physical and mental grind of a season.  With all of the minutes and responsibility placed on our frosh, they may be plateauing and in need of recharge.  Chase Paar looked exhausted yesterday and we had little depth from the bench to help either him or Battle underneath.  Same for Jameer at the guard spot.  And in these games right now when we fall behind and go through cold stretches on offense, I'd imagine that wall gets higher and higher as a game goes on. We try to force plays or passes that are not there on offense and the legs get more wobbly on defense.     

4) Coach Christian's coaching philosophy is built for the long-term.  All of us have questioned why we don't play a zone--especially with a short bench and bad match-ups.  All I can say to that is Coach Christian has repeatedly said that this is a process.  Getting better and not deviating from aspects of the game he believes provide the best opportunity to win consistently in the long run means working progressively on those things now even if it means taking a beating.  Would a zone yesterday have translated into a win?  A 15 point loss instead of 31?   Coach has said a zone could be in the mix in the future--but for now, no shortcuts.

Also, for those critical of taking all of the threes, we did not take many early in the game when Rhode Island was aggressively denying the perimeter.  Instead we looked to go inside with some measure of mixed success.  Sometime we could execute.  Often, we could not.  We had some bad passes forcing inside and Chase still doesn't appear to have the softest hands in receiving hard passes--but the barrage of missed threes really didn't occur until the game was essential over. 

When you're hot you're hot; when you're not you're not.  But basically, right now I have trust that Coach Christian is on the right path for implementing his process.    

5) Toro and Harris: I heard that both players were ill--Harris was not so ill that he couldn't be present, but Toro may have been sick enough that you didn't want him anywhere near the team.  I'm hearing this second-hand so I have no idea on its accuracy.  But I like this reasoning much better than randomly speculating on Toro's happiness with the team.

6) A Week Off Cure?  I'm hoping a week off allows players to get health and our frosh to recharge.  I'm not expecting a win at Mason, but it would be nice to have a plausible chance of winning well into the contest.  It was a good crowd yesterday and disappointing that we couldn't put on a better show.  But with the players we dressed yesterday, covering 9 points against Rhode Island seemed impossible.  

Merrick, I agree with several of your points, including the very underrated one regarding Armel.  A huge reason why the offense flows more easily under Armel is due to his ability to make quick decisions with the ball while penetrating.  When he attracts too much attention, he is great at spotting the open three point shooter and getting him the ball where he likes it.  Of course we would like him to be a better finisher but the fact is he gets fouled a lot and is 80% at the line.  His success rate at scoring, being fouled, or finding the open man is extremely high.

By contrast, JNJ and Shawn are each learning how to play the point at this level.  With JNJ, the problems are too may turnovers and a few too many ill-advised shots.  With Shawn, he needs to become more of an offensive threat (though this last game was encouraging) to attract the double teams in the first place.  As for Amir, he has great court vision but there have been too many times when he beats his man off of the dribble but then has shown an inability to score.  I'm also willing to suggest that while capable, point guard is not likely to be Amir's natural position on the floor.

The two points i wanted to question or clarify have to do with the freshman wall and the team's three point shooting vs. URI.  I would fully understand the freshman wall applying to Jamison and JNJ given the number of minutes each has logged.  However, the same can not be said for Chase and Shawn.  In the case of Chase, he has gone from the injured list to being asked to carry an enormous load.  His lack of strength and conditioning are predictably settling in.  I think this has far more to do with going from "stagnant" to "overused" than it does a freshman wall.  As for Shawn, he clearly looked like one of our more energetic, dynamic players against URI.  Hard to project a freshman wall onto someone who has played so sparingly.

Regarding the other point, you wrote, "the barrage of missed threes really didn't occur until the game was essentially over."  Am not sure if you read my earlier post on this thread but if you had, you would see that your statement, simply put, is not factually correct.  To recap, we cut a 12 point lead down to two without taking a single three point shot.  (I agree that we weren't taking many up until this point in the game.)  But, when URI went on a 17-0 run to turn a three point lead to a 20 point lead, the run when the game was essentially won and lost, GW went 0-10 from the field of which seven of the attempts were from three.  Giving up a 17-0 run when 70% of your shot attempts are from long range is the antithesis of suggesting that the barrage of missed threes didn't occur until the game was all but over.  Instead, it was one of the direct reasons why the game got so out of hand late in the first half.
 

Very good point that teams bring in guys like Toro to plug the gaps, as another team will next year with Toro, if he chooses to play. Would also argue that we need to get one or two players like that this spring, when the season is over.
   On Toro, it's hard to understand morally, which is important as we are a college team and probably won the only national championship we are going to get. Along with not making sense strategically to pressure players until they respond/are forced to leave because someone like Ace( a good free) or Maceo might realize that could be him next year. We all figure Mezie,also buried and Javi are already gone. But it even what someone like Chase what he might face if someone is recruited over him. It sends a message that the hero of a game who was capable of helping but ignored until double overtime--and plays not only hard, but so well we win the game--can not be rewarded for his patience, decency and performance, but put back at the end of the line. That can filter down to players the coach may want to keep.
Both Toro, an elite NCAA rebounder, and Mazz could have contributed significantly in many situations this year.
  Whatever happened to cause this situation, what made it that way seems pretty clear, as it was with Mazz.
It's not right to someone, who like Mazz, is a good player and exemplary GW student. Do other teams essentially run off players mid-semester. Not the end of the season, or mid-year, which is bad enough. But mid-season.
And we've been blown out in something like 4 or 5 games. Does this really help the team get better for the future? Does it lead to a bright future? You can play better players at least some and also have newcomers get experience for the future. 
It's not a one-off. It's happened twice now.
Sorry, this doesn't seem to be a good look and how dedicated and capable GW basketball players should be treated. It's not a good recruiting tool, not right and not who we should want to be. 

jf wrote:

Very good point that teams bring in guys like Toro to plug the gaps, as another team will next year with Toro, if he chooses to play. Would also argue that we need to get one or two players like that this spring, when the season is over.
   On Toro, it's hard to understand morally, which is important as we are a college team and probably won the only national championship we are going to get. Along with not making sense strategically to pressure players until they respond/are forced to leave because someone like Ace( a good free) or Maceo might realize that could be him next year. We all figure Mezie,also buried and Javi are already gone. But it even what someone like Chase what he might face if someone is recruited over him. It sends a message that the hero of a game who was capable of helping but ignored until double overtime--and plays not only hard, but so well we win the game--can not be rewarded for his patience, decency and performance, but put back at the end of the line. That can filter down to players the coach may want to keep.
Both Toro, an elite NCAA rebounder, and Mazz could have contributed significantly in many situations this year.
  Whatever happened to cause this situation, what made it that way seems pretty clear, as it was with Mazz.
It's not right to someone, who like Mazz, is a good player and exemplary GW student. Do other teams essentially run off players mid-semester. Not the end of the season, or mid-year, which is bad enough. But mid-season.
And we've been blown out in something like 4 or 5 games. Does this really help the team get better for the future? Does it lead to a bright future? You can play better players at least some and also have newcomers get experience for the future. 
It's not a one-off. It's happened twice now.
Sorry, this doesn't seem to be a good look and how dedicated and capable GW basketball players should be treated. It's not a good recruiting tool, not right and not who we should want to be. 

God help us if this is the prevailing thinking among the fanbase. Perhaps you should really learn why Mazzulla left. Nothing has happened twice except where you have invented facts to make it so.

All I have to say is this. To fix a broken program culture and poor talent you have to be bold. If you are not willing to be bold then you can be like Fordham. Your choice.

GWRising, first of all, let's not revert to the school of  Oh God, what does the fanbase think.
I'm happy with the coach.  I just question this one situation.    Having followed GW through 9 coaching changes, and having sat through games where there were maybe 500 people in the house, I think I can conclusively say:  none of us really knows the best approach to holdover players. Every situation's different.   That out of the way,  were the players responsible for the broken culture?  Toro came out this season reeling off double doubles like there was no tomorrow.  I realize it was often against weaker opponents, but he obviously wanted to prove something and few players get 10 rebounds against anyone these days.  He was the one of three big guys who came in together and he kept playing as the team bottomed out.  I can't speak for anyone else here, but again, I understand starting Paar and giving him the most minutes, but IF Toro's essentially being frozen out because he's done after this season, besides not being fair to him, I just think it's shortsighted.  My opinion.  No eye rolling necessary if you disagree with me.  I see your point too.  If Toro's hurt or has a contagious illness, this is just a philosophical debate.

NoVa Blue wrote:

GWRising, first of all, let's not revert to the school of Oh God, what does the fanbase think.
I'm happy with the coach. I just question this one situation. Having followed GW through 9 coaching changes, and having sat through games where there were maybe 500 people in the house, I think I can conclusively say: none of us really knows the best approach to holdover players. Every situation's different. That out of the way, were the players responsible for the broken culture? Toro came out this season reeling off double doubles like there was no tomorrow. I realize it was often against weaker opponents, but he obviously wanted to prove something and few players get 10 rebounds against anyone these days. He was the one of three big guys who came in together and he kept playing as the team bottomed out. I can't speak for anyone else here, but again, I understand starting Paar and giving him the most minutes, but IF Toro's essentially being frozen out because he's done after this season, besides not being fair to him, I just think it's shortsighted. My opinion. No eye rolling necessary if you disagree with me. I see your point too. If Toro's hurt or has a contagious illness, this is just a philosophical debate.

OK if we don't want to play "Oh God this is what the fan base thinks" then let's also not assume facts into evidence. We talk about Toro's rebounding. Save for 2 games we have not been crushed on the boards. But do we also consider his inability to finish at the rim or shortcomings at defending the post? Do we consider that Toro will not be here (even if he stays next year) when we are likely ready to challenge? Do we consider that Potter who will also not be here next year is playing? Or do we only focus on Toro to derive a judgment on what is or is not occurring?

JC was hired to fix a badly broken program. JC is not going to be judged at all on whether he was nice to the holdovers. JC is going to be judged on where this program goes over the next couple of years. Unfortunately, when you don't win there are going to be casualties and this affects not only coaches (Mojo and staff) but players as well.JC wants to play a different way than Mojo did. Toro or others may not be as good a fit. It is what it is. Again, until someone decides we are not judging JC on his record, it's his ship to captain for better or worse. To me, he has wide latitude to make whatever changes he deems necessary even if some feelings are hurt. When it's broke, fix it!
 

jf wrote:

At the moment, on a head to head basis, we can only aspire to be like Fordham, which beat us for their only conference win. We're not really turning around quickly, even though turning teams around is supposed to be the specialty of the house. Whatever is going on, bad strategy or questionable moral treatment of respected and capable athletes, doesn't even come with the satisfaction winning, or in a string of recent games, even being competitive.
Toro had 5 rebounds in six minutes,nearly 1 per minute in the Fordham game.  Of course, Arnaldo earlier tied Yinka's record with 24 rebounds and 20 points.  We could have found minutes for him instead of frustrating him into whatever transpired so that he was not on the bench. He also went to a big well known basketball school. Things like this affect recruiting.
  Arnaldo is listed as a member of GW's Leadership Academy, presumably the select Student-Athlete Leadership Academy. So was Mazzula. Tells a bit about their character off the court.
 Since there has been an allusion to inside knowledge, what about Armel Potter, who went from seeming discard to this season's savior, who's loss we all bemoan? What would be the backstory? Armel spent  a considerable amount of time on the bench early in the season. 1 minute in one game. Can't find him in the box score in another game. That's 3 competitive players sidelined this year, not counting what happened before the season.
  We've heard here that it's a dog eat dog world as an explanation. It's someone's right to argue that, though we do claim these are student athletes, not pros. This notion of not being like Fordham would be considerably bolstered if we were successful, but we aren't, not even at hapless Fordam. It's hard to say in light of recent games, worse than even even our extremely low expectations, this year that we are on the absolute path to success next year and beyond.
And even if we were, is it worth it to treat dedicated players like that?
 The school of thought is you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. Well, these were good eggs before.
The omelette is not palatable and is starting to seem like our soul is either.
   
   
 

 jf either you weren't around last year or you conveniently have chosen to selectively forget a few salient points.

Let's start with Armel ... how much did he play last year? 
How many games did we win last year with all these talented and high character players?
How did we do against Mason, St. Joseph's, Davidson and UMass last year with Mazzulla in the lineup? 
How did we do at Fordham last year?

Further, character does not equal playing time. If it did, why are you not arguing for Mitola, Sasser, Galley to see more time? Usually walk-ons have the highest character because they must be self-less.

Correct me if I am wrong but we have thus far won 10 games this year ... one more than last year. Seems like we are certainly not worse and with three promising freshmen we have much to be hopeful for in the future. Give it a chance. I think JC has a plan.
 

GWRising, you seem very willing to turn this discussion into solely a moral debate as to why AT isn't playing more out of loyalty.  If Chase were a demonstrably better option strictly from a talent and productivity standpoint, and if Ace were giving us more on the floor than AT does, I think most people would better understand your point of view.  And, I don't believe that anyone here is suggesting that AT ought to be playing 33 minutes a game while Chase and Ace split up the other 7 minutes.  The folks you are debating do understand the value and importance of developing players for the future.

What it seems like you are missing are two things: 1) My (and perhaps others) position has as much if not more to do with helping the team win games today; and 2) The extremes in which JC and the coaching staff are going to execute their plan, and by that I mean either not playing AT at all in some games while barely playing him at all in others, do strike some as being rather radical. 

If Chase started and averaged 23 minutes a game while AT averaged 17 minutes a game, would this really hamper Chase's development?  Seems like it would also keep Chase fresher during games.

Nobody is suggesting that there aren't any flaws to AT's game as you've repeatedly pointed out.  He has far from a perfect game.  And, he did hit a stretch, post-injury, where he failed to aggressively finish around the rim.  Coupled with Chase's emerging from his injury, it's easy to make a case that AT's minutes deserved to be reduced.  But, not to practically no minutes at all.

While he did have the advantage of fresh legs when he came in against Davidson, he also carried the disadvantage of stiffening up on the bench for over 40 minutes too.  The fact is that once he came into that game, he performed at a high level.  That was the performance which led me to think, "OK.  It's now clear that JC will have to get AT back into the rotation."  The questions in my mind were whether he would play alongside Chase and if not, how would he divide the minutes.  The notion that he would be back at the end of the bench again seemed crazy.  Not after that performance.

I understand your opinion even if I disagree with it.  I do wish though that you would stop treating this discussion as if the opposing side to you is saying that AT deserves to play out of loyalty or because he stuck around.  That may be a part of it but so are AT's abilities on the court.  In fact, those abilities represent the more compelling argument.

Gwmayhem wrote:

GWRising, you seem very willing to turn this discussion into solely a moral debate as to why AT isn't playing more out of loyalty.  If Chase were a demonstrably better option strictly from a talent and productivity standpoint, and if Ace were giving us more on the floor than AT does, I think most people would better understand your point of view.  And, I don't believe that anyone here is suggesting that AT ought to be playing 33 minutes a game while Chase and Ace split up the other 7 minutes.  The folks you are debating do understand the value and importance of developing players for the future.

What it seems like you are missing are two things: 1) My (and perhaps others) position has as much if not more to do with helping the team win games today; and 2) The extremes in which JC and the coaching staff are going to execute their plan, and by that I mean either not playing AT at all in some games while barely playing him at all in others, do strike some as being rather radical. 

If Chase started and averaged 23 minutes a game while AT averaged 17 minutes a game, would this really hamper Chase's development?  Seems like it would also keep Chase fresher during games.

Nobody is suggesting that there aren't any flaws to AT's game as you've repeatedly pointed out.  He has far from a perfect game.  And, he did hit a stretch, post-injury, where he failed to aggressively finish around the rim.  Coupled with Chase's emerging from his injury, it's easy to make a case that AT's minutes deserved to be reduced.  But, not to practically no minutes at all.

While he did have the advantage of fresh legs when he came in against Davidson, he also carried the disadvantage of stiffening up on the bench for over 40 minutes too.  The fact is that once he came into that game, he performed at a high level.  That was the performance which led me to think, "OK.  It's now clear that JC will have to get AT back into the rotation."  The questions in my mind were whether he would play alongside Chase and if not, how would he divide the minutes.  The notion that he would be back at the end of the bench again seemed crazy.  Not after that performance.

I understand your opinion even if I disagree with it.  I do wish though that you would stop treating this discussion as if the opposing side to you is saying that AT deserves to play out of loyalty or because he stuck around.  That may be a part of it but so are AT's abilities on the court.  In fact, those abilities represent the more compelling argument.

I am treating this discussion that way because several had made that exact point - Toro is a high character kid who stuck around in difficult circumstances. Read back up the thread.

The question I have for you is the opposite. Do you not think that JC has even considered (and apparently rejected) the option of pairing Toro and Paar as a two headed monster of sorts? Hopefully, you would at least acknowledge this. Also, how do you know other factors aren't at play here such as health? Do you know for example, whether Toro is completely healthy? Perhaps he has a nagging injury that is affecting JC's ability to play him. He has missed considerable time this year having nothing to do with JC. Perhaps JC is looking out for the kid. Perhaps it is a combination of both his health and the future. Perhaps Toro told JC he is going to grad transfer at end of year. Reasons aren't just often one thing as to why someone plays and the other doesn't. I think JC would prefer if he had a healthy effective Toro who could play this year and next. He has already shown that he will play Potter who can't help him next year. Personally, I think this situation with Toro is far more complex than has been acknowledged here. I also believe it is unfair to JC to criticize him for not playing Toro when you don't know any or all of his reasons. 

Finally, while you may be concerned about winning games this year, I will gladly sacrifice some wins this year so we can win bigger in the future. Somehow I don't think Toro really makes that much of a difference either way in the W-L record but even if he did what is it 2-3 more wins? I remember people complaining about Lonergan dissing Hobbs' holdovers. Well, Lonergan was in the tournament 2 years later. A coach has to get his guys and guys that fit his system. It's not always about who is the best player today but more about about who can be the best player tomorrow. I agree that sometimes results in fan favorites being put on the bench. But that's a small price to pay to get this thing turned in the right direction.

Second GW Mayhem's post about closing this. It does belong in the Rhode Island game, since his absence was noted there. But Barry has a good point that it is more philosophical. This can be discussed elsewwhere.  There was a thread that was started on this, that seemed by and large respectful. Certainly I tried to start it with a respectful tone. And if characterizing his comments correctly, Barry acknowledges this is an appropriate subject. 
Mazzulla and Toro disappear mid-semester, whether AT emerges again or not. Not one guy, both. Both extremely high-character guys and players well worthy of contributing significantly to this team.  So, whatever happened, bear that in mind. 
Why doesn't our insider tell/acknowledge the Potter story? That's 3 players sidelined one way or another. After DJ, Terry Nolan, Shandon Brown and Marcus Littles "left" the program, which at least happened at season's end, not mid-Semester.
This season, Potter only freed from the deep, deep bench out of desperation and now coaching staff talks about how important he is, although he couldn't get off the bench one game and played a minute in another one--against low-level teams. Raises questions of judgment over talent and proprietary. Personally, it's important to have a moral center because we are not Duke and never will be Duke. And losing very badly now not only kinds of dims hope for that great future, but doesn't fit in with moral shortcuts.
  It also damages recruiting since losing consistently makes it harder to get anyone to come. And forcing off players from respected high school programs. We're not exactly getting four star recruits now, so we have to consider every factor we can to get good players.
And yes, Adam should have played more and still should if healthy and we are emphasizing 3 point shooting--and he should have plays/passes for him to get those shots. A number of us have been calling for that. 
  Would be nice to see the old thread reopened or a new one started, if this is closed. It's critical to discuss things like this on a fan message board. Runs through many issues for the team, from playing time to strategy and values.
  But also would be important to hear other voices, as there were throughout much of this thread and the other one. We know how several of us feel. I am more interested in what other dedicated fans think, so hope others chime in through the old thread or a new one, if this is closed. That would make a new/reopened thread especially worthwhile.