GWRising wrote:

Just a reminder in case anyone thinks I'm not being consistent. This was my prediction on the GW Season Predictions thread...

GWRising wrote:

I am going with 10-3 OOC and 12-6 in Conference. No at-large bid but a legit chance to win the A-10 tourney. NIT bid likely. Still a big step forward.

This is about what I was expecting before the season began, but I admit that my expectations rose a bit after the early season blowouts. After the Caymans, my expectations fell back to where I was before the season started. With that in mind, I’ll take a 14 point road win any time.

Any word on Marshall's injury status?  Will he be available for W&M?

Free Quebec wrote:

GWRising wrote:

C'mon fellas. In the past, we would have lost a game like this. Yes, we did not play well and looked out of sync. Early start on snow day probably had some to do with it. But we won by 14 on the road with probably our C game at best. The good news is we have a lot to work on with a victory. Stop being so miserable. You would think we are Duke or something. It's college basketball and we are an A-10 team. We have not yet earned the right to have post-season expectations. If you thought we were anything other than a work in progress you haven't been paying attention.

You had me until you said we haven’t earned the right to have post-season expectations. Strongly disagree. We made postseason last year and have a better team this year. We have our highest KenPom and Net in a decade. We have the depth and talent.

We absolutely should expect postseason this year. You yourself called it likely, which means you expect it too, even if you’re trying to downplay expectations today.

And if all that isn’t convincing enough, I’ll also argue that paying fans have every right to any expectation they choose to have.

I should have been clearer that I meant NCAA expectations. We are talking about NET like it means something on December 2nd. It means nothing. Too much basketball left and we are far from a finished product. We should worry about improving each game and see where we end up. The NET discussions are purely academic at this point.

14 point road win against a Patriot league team...a win that was in doubt until late second half.
How are we so bad at shooting 3s?  and defending 3s?  At least we made FTs.
Still think we should have added to the coaching staff...maybe next year.

This was the game that I wasn't particularly fond of from a basketball perspective when we discussed the schedule in the offseason. Sadly, that ended up being the case and hopefully CC can find ways to schedule this kind of game as a scrimmage or exhibition honoring the military at West Point instead of doing a regular season road game in the future. Saying Duke made the trip doesn't change this. Not only are the Blue Devils in a different league from GW, they also had a connection to Army in Coach K.

As others mentioned, the early start time didn't help. Ultimately, CC scheduled this home-and-home with the thought that this was one that could be won by a large margin (which is never easy on the road). It was known when it was originally scheduled that their leading scorer Rucker was graduating and Army was going to be young before the return game at West Point. Does the NET and thinking about how much the team wins by suck? Absolutely, but it is what it is right now and the margin of error is so thin in the A10. However unlikely at-large bids are for the conference, the contending teams have to go for it. While GW's hopes following the MTE made such dreams a long shot, they also have to keep their metrics high to help other teams in the conference as well.

GWRising wrote:

C'mon fellas. In the past, we would have lost a game like this. Yes, we did not play well and looked out of sync. Early start on snow day probably had some to do with it. But we won by 14 on the road with probably our C game at best. The good news is we have a lot to work on with a victory. Stop being so miserable. You would think we are Duke or something. It's college basketball and we are an A-10 team. We have not yet earned the right to have post-season expectations. If you thought we were anything other than a work in progress you haven't been paying attention.

Is a win better than no win? Of course. Saying we would have lost a game like this in the past is somewhat irrelevant when 1) the team was not expected to contend/was not as good, and 2) the NIL was non-existent. CC should always get the credit for raising the floor of the team. For most GW teams, a 14 point road win against anyone would be a success. Unfortunately, with greater expectations comes more critiques. Once a guy like Slim graduates, expectations will be adjusted as such next year. In a game where GW is favored by 20 against a young, bottom 25 team in the nation not covering is not good. Every team is a work in progress at this time of year.

Truthfully, this is the kind of game where fans would be "so miserable" because a decisive win tells you nothing and a close win raises alarm bells. There's no positives in that scenario. No one should be hitting the panic button or anything by any means, but it was a poor performance. Army predictably was motivated and GW wasn't.

Gwmayhem wrote:

We seem to have to have this discussion after most every loss or non-convincing win so here it goes...

On offense, this team is playing exactly the way CC wants them to play.  Could GW have scored 60 points in the paint today and won by say 25-30?  Probably.  The problem though is that GW can't do this against A10 competition.  So he's trying to get the team comfortable with playing a style of offense that they can compete with against anyone.  This is right out of the NBA...lots of 3's and points at the rim.  I can understand the frustration but are you seriously going to feel frustration each and every game?  Because this will not be changing.  CC is convinced that unlike past seasons, he now has the three-point shooters to win consistently playing this style.
 

This seems silly. If GW had a path to winning by 25-30 by going inside, they should have done it. A10 or not, you shift the game plan for the opponent so you can have the most success. I don't have an issue with open three point shots that are generated either from going around the horn or kick outs from the paint. However, today way too many of the threes were contested and I'm not sure there's ever a scenario where GW should take over half their shots from 3. Slim and Luke were taller than anyone on Army and the Black Knights have no rim protection. It was baffling to see the team hoist so many threes, especially when they were having little success. Where was the off-ball cutting today?

I think the offense may have been worse than the defense today, but the latter was quite bad too. Army has shot 43% from deep in their last two games (both wins), averaging 13 makes between those two contests. Why on Earth was the team giving up open look after open look? It's like they learned nothing from the Murray State game. Army was fourth in the nation in three point attempt percentage coming into the game - they want to take those shots. Besides double teaming Curry, I am not sure what the game plan was. Grabbing 50-50 balls continues to be an issue as well. The three that West Point hit at the end of the first half felt eerily similar to the end of last year's AU game and it doesn't seem like a coincidence. The only time the team felt disruptive was when Army carelessly handed GW the ball.

The William & Mary and Delaware games will be good tests to see whether GW can learn to guard the perimeter better.
 

Yes, this may seem silly.  My objective isn't necessarily to defend CC's thinking but rather to explain it.  I do believe coaching has much to do with capitalizing upon a team's strengths while minimizing weaknesses.  The opponent has everything to do with this.  Hitting the offensive glass hard may make far more sense against one team than it would against another, as an example.

That said, the defense behind what I am projecting was the case yesterday is as follows:

1) You may argue this but I never felt GW was ever in any real jeopardy of losing the game.  

2) When Army got as close as it did, GW went inside for some easy baskets and created some distance on the scoreboard.  CC knew this was available if needed.

3) In trying to get his team comfortable to play a certain way, the best opportunity to do this with as little risk as possible is to do so in a real game (not practice) against an opponent who you believe you should easily defeat. What we're talking about is an offense designed to create open looks from 3.  Players need to learn who they can count on, how they like to receive passes, who is a catch-and-shoot guy and who prefers shooting off the bounce, etc.  An opponent such as Army lends itself to execute these reps far more than a typical A10 caliber team. 

What is counterintuitive about all of this is CC explaining that he can't afford to give walk-ons extended minutes since margin of victory factors into the metrics but then is willing to forego a more dominant win by going inside far more often in exchange for trying to improve an offense that is predicated upon taking many three point shots.  Just how important is margin of victory?

Lastly, all the talk about Q1/Q2, NET, KenPom, and the rest is encouraging after witnessing how low this program sunk post-Lonergan.  That said, I agree with GWRising that it's practically meaningless on December 3.  A certain poster will undoubtedly continue to go on and on about these metrics after each and every game because he knows he's annoying some here by doing so.  That's fine, the cost of doing business here I suppose.  Nevertheless, we all should have the understanding that these things have real meaning in March and everything today is subject to change by then, such as a Q1 win today becoming a Q2 win by season's end.  

I appreciate this discussion about our style of play v Army; to me the problem was we went too far with the double teaming and left their guards wide open for 3. Army was 14-28 from 3 at one point until GW paid more attention to their guards the last 5 minutes.

One thing that was obvious was that a concerted effort was made to give an obviously very rusty Bevins some significant and meaningful playing time in a game that was suppose to be a cakewalk.   Some of that may have been by necessity, with Marshall out (probably out of an abundance of caution against a weak opponent), but CC has shown a willingness (or even preference?) to use an 8 man lineup.  I hear all the "reasons" why I shouldn't be concerned about Army, but to me Army demonstrated an inability to put a lesser team away much earlier in the game) and I saw no improvement in the defense from the Caymans.   These teams are getting wide opened looks from the 3 frequently because the double team has not been that effective and I would profess that far more D-1 athletes than not are able to knock down a 3 on a fairly regular basis.  I fear we are looking at another 45-50% 3 point shooting and a game in which the opponent scores in the 80s or 90s.

Some trends against Army worth continuing to monitor.

GW: 12 assists on 24 made baskets.(not sharing the ball nearly as well as earlier in the season)

Army: 20 assists on 25 made baskets.

Army: 10 turnovers (7 were GW steals)

I'll keep on saying it...if you are going to play a high-pressure trapping defense, then you have to force more turnovers than this. 

The 7 steals are literally around the average steal totals of all NCAA 1 teams this season.  You must be well above average if this style is going to work.  Why?  Because not only is the opponent keeping the ball, but...

20 assists on 25 made baskets

This happens because the defense is consistently leaving someone open after the double teams fail and Army did a great job at finding the open shooter.

With more depth this year, we can afford to play more aggressively on defense even if this means that players sometimes get into foul trouble.  So, if the team is going to continue to play a trapping style of defense, it must turn teams over at a much higher rate.  Or, if the team just isn't capable of forcing many turnovers, then it should throw out this defense.  The point is it needs to be one or the other.

GWRising wrote:

All I am going to say here is that a lot of the observations made here are shared by the staff and they are working to make adjustments and improve the defense. Whether that is schematic or personnel changes remains to be seen but I would expect some of both. Some of our better offensive players are not some of our better defensive players and vice versa. So understand that CC is still trying to find the right combos that maximize our output on both ends of the floor. Rome was not built is a day and I would think it's going to take time and reps to improve the schematic part.

Dinkins is the ultimate example of this. Really good offensive player, but the defense isn’t there yet. If the coaching staff can figure out how to turn him into a decent defender, the sky is the limit.