JC and his coaching staff have said repeatedly all year that what they are trying to accomplish is a process for getting better everyday.  JC even went so far to say that he wasn't counting losses, but how they performed, because getting better would translate into more wins down the road.  At various times, the coaches have been asked why we don't do x, y, or z--and the consistent gist of their responses is that they are working on improving certain aspects of their performance each game and they can't work on all of them at once. 

I suppose one could argue that this is simply an excuse for losing, but JC sees it as a process for winning in the long run.  I don't know how all of this fits into rotations, practice performance, injuries, and the intangibles of maintaining morale and the interest of the 100 serious GW fans--not to mention students, but I do trust JC's coaching instincts, his passion to understand the game better, and continually assess and improve. To  me, the most significant long-term question is can he get top flight mid-major D-1 talent to play at GW..         

  

jf wrote:

AT healthy enough to win games, then not healthy enough to play significant minutes, but healthy enough to play. Then when Chase and Ace not effective, healthy enough to play a lot and resulting in wins, We get it.
And Potter, who played a whopping 8 minutes vs. Towson, 1 min against Howard and then the apparent Did Not Play/Coach's decision.
Tell us the insider view of coach's plans for Armel, long our savior, who can't even step off the court for a minute when healthy?
This is relevant to Mason game because Arnaldo was the third big man off the bench. And we only have 3 big men healthy.
In addition to the basketball, which makes zero sense, no matter how it's explained, there is a decency component of giving someone who has stuck with us and played through pain a fair chance to receive playing time he's earned.
Beyond one question, not interested in pursuing point/counterpoint with a couple of people. Want to know what a wider audience thinks. Sure seems like odd usage of player deemed healthy enough to play.
 

Change is tough but change was necessary. You can keep doing what you do and get the same result or you can try something different and see what happens. JC wasn't hired to honor the past, he was hired to fix the future. That may cause some people to be uncomfortable both on the team and in the stands. I don't think that's worse than being uncomfortable watching non-competitive teams for the past two seasons. Each to his own I guess.

Last edited by GWRising (2/21/2020 2:12 pm)

Gwmayhem wrote:

Another head scratcher from GWRising.  To each his own?  To take the position that AT should have played far more minutes when he was healthy enough to do so (and if he was healthy enough to do what he did against Davidson, then you should be able to infer that he was healthy enough to play more than he did against Richmond and St. Bonaventure, or that he should not have been the third option after Chase or Ace against George Mason or Duquesne), does this really somehow equate to preferring to watch non-competitive teams for the past two seasons over watching JC make changes to his team?  This is an example of GWRising losing all perspective.

There isn't a single person here who prefers the 2017-18 or 2018-19 seasons to this one.  How you can possibly get there from "AT should have been playing more" or "AT shouldn't be the third option behind Chase and Ace" is beyond me.

And by the way, I am all for change as long as the change is productive.  JNJ was the starting point guard to start the year.  JC changed that and went to Armel very early into the season while still managing to find an important role for JNJ.  That was a great change.  As for AT, I completely understand that Chase got healthy right around the time that AT looked rusty coming off of his injury.  Everyone pretty much acknowledged that AT didn't look quite right.  And, Chase played well and deserved his minutes. Eventually though, AT got well enough to perform at a higher level than Chase can right now.  And not only did AT remain out of the starting lineup but was also playing behind Ace as well.  Is Ace's development so important that AT should be playing behind him?

It's very easy to point out that AT was too unhealthy to play but the fact is that nobody here knows how healthy or unhealthy he was any more or less than I do.  I am talking about after how he played against Davidson.  Excluding the URI game when he was not on the bench, there just isn't a good explanation for why he remained the 3rd string center.  He played 33 minutes, scored 16 points and grabbed 14 rebounds against a rugged Duquesne team on Wednesday.  He should have been given this type of opportunity (for playing time and production) much sooner.  To suggest otherwise, either for the sake of change or for Chase's development, just aren't strong enough reasons IMO.  

He played 13 minutes against Davidson ... not 30. He did not play the first 47. How do you know how he was feeling afterwards? How do you know what happened in the subsequent practices?

Also you do realize Paar had 13 points, 16 rebounds and 2 blocks in 43 minutes. While you are busy acting as if Toro was the only reason we won the Davidson game, we don't get to overtime without Paar's performance. So what lesson did JC learn from Davidson? He could have learned that Paar can handle the bulk of the minutes notwithstanding Toro's health which you admit you have no idea about but yet want to assert is not a real factor here.That could explain the next few games even if Toro was healthy. Recall that Javier hit a game winning shot this year but that didn't mean his minutes went up the next game.

But perhaps it is just Toro is healthier now and JC has reassessed the idea of playing Paar/Ace so many minutes given their more recent performances. Changed circumstances don't make JC's previous decisions regarding Toro or Paar wrong - just means things changed as they often do in sports - up one minute down the next. Again, my only point all along is unless you know all of the facts and circumstances involved it is nearly impossible to second guess JC here on this with any credibility.

Last edited by GWRising (2/21/2020 2:54 pm)

Gwmayhem wrote:

So what's the answer here?  Let's just assume that every decision JC makes is the correct one because if it doesn't work out, or could have worked out better, then he had to have had a good reason for doing so which we do not nor will ever know about?

Using your logic, it's every bit as wrong for you to defend certain decisions as it is to be critical of them.  Unless you know all of the facts and circumstances.

It's a shame that we don't appear to be receiving online the postgame interviews or press conferences anymore.  Imagine JC saying after the Davidson game, "we had no intention of playing AT, didn't feel he was healthy enough, but he begged us to get in there and he played like a warrior."  Or after Wednesday's game, "we still have him playing behind Chase and Ace because he still is not close to 100% and is playing his way back into shape.  He ended up playing so well that we couldn't take him out."  Quotes like these would certainly help your side of the argument and would give a great deal of clarity to many fans.

I miss herve's "Like" button you could press twenty times.
 

All I need to see is how this team responds to the coaching staff and each other. I’m not seeing indifferent players on the bench. I’m not seeing a team going through the motions waiting for the season to end. And I’m not seeing a coaching staff not instructing, not encouraging, not engaged with the players. Things seem to be just fine without all the psycho babble from the peanut gallery. Is it impossible for us just to enjoy the improvement we’re obviously seeing this year without ascribing our traditional GW angst to facts not in evidence?

There is a ton to be pleased about.  Having a discussion or debate about how Toro has been used does not diminish this team's accomplishments in any way, nor has it dampened my enthusiasm towards this team, today and in the future.  Nor does it mean that I can't stand JC or think he can't coach.  I actually think he has the makings of being an excellent coach.  Simply put, AT's use has been a curious and sometimes mysterious judgment call that I can't say I have completely understood or agreed with.  Enough said on the subject.

Gwmayhem wrote:

It's a shame that we don't appear to be receiving online the postgame interviews or press conferences anymore.

I was about to write the same thing. When ML was coach, postgame conferences were always streamed online on Facebook at least. We can't even have that as fans now. I can understand road games, but at least show the home postgame conferences. Part of the problem is we have no media outlet covering us even somewhat. A few quotes from the hatchet recaps is all we get at this point, and there wasn't even a single quote from JC in the Duquesne recap. Heck even Duquesne has someone covering them:




Nice win by the team. Everyone looked really locked in for about 35 minutes, especially Maceo who just looks like a completely different player now. JC has talked about getting him to show his emotions on the floor, and I think that is starting to show through. You just have to watch Maceo's defensive intensity - he is in the face of his man, constantly trying to poke the ball away. Just totally different from just a few months ago when he was trying to just stay with his man. Offensively, I liked how everyone was moving off the ball which is just so different from last year. We had AT roll to the basket, but also have our three point shooters coming off curls making it tough on Duquesne to know where we were going with it. Defense continues to be the difference maker though. Duquesne looked a bit flat for sure, but AT did a great job just taking up space down low and making it tough for Hughes and Weathers to finish. This game actually reminded me a bit of the URI game, except once we made our comeback in the first half after the predictable slow start, it was Duquesne this time that settled for threes and not us which worked out for us.

The last five minutes will not be discussed about too much since we won, so I'll just say it came at a good time so we have some film to watch to prepare for the VCU game. I want to add that I'm surprised we didn't try the football pass deep which we've executed a couple times this year. After we failed to get the ball in for the second time, I thought we would change things up. Even if the pass isn't made, at least Duquesne has to reset a bit in the backcourt which will also take up some time in the clock late in the game. Won't blame Jamison for failing to get the ball in because nobody was open several times for him to get the ball in to, and he only forced the pass when the five second count was almost up. I thought he actually showed good instincts to at least call timeout a couple times during the game which could have made things even worse otherwise (the ball slipping out of his hands at one point, and him overthrowing Maceo on a pass in the halfcourt were his bad turnovers).
 

jf wrote:

Unless anyone chimes in, not interested in furthering this. Impossible to argue against AT's numbers, particularly rebounding, especially against Duquesne and Davidson.
But this issue speaks to judgment and ability to evaluate and use talent. Tell us JC plans for Armel before he was so important he could never leave the court when playing.
Actually was going to bring up Javi's winning putback on the other side. Part of motivating players it would seem is to reward them for game performance. Javi gets up of the pine and wins the game. Doesn't get him any playing time next game, as noted above. (Ace took several minutes. Toro 12 points, 17 rebounds)
    Not a basketball coach, but would think in terms of morale and human behavior and (the phrase played his way into the lineup, if not rewarding a play with more time for success, you wouldn't bench him. Doesn't send the greatest message about consistency and values to the non-favorite rest of the team.
  Nor would it inspire the passion or show the love we keep hearing about as being fostered with the team. 

"Not a basketball coach but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn"  basically is jf's refrain here lol. The team is fine, the morale is fine but if you want to invent stuff for discussion by all means no one here is going to stop you.

It Toro remained injured and this was affecting his playing time, then why not say so when asked.  If you believe that a yes or no anser would somehow violate the player's HIPPA rights, then say you are not at liberty to discuss Toro's health rather than lying by saying he is healthy.  In fact, I do not believe the administration lied.   They said he was healthy, no disciplinary issues and was a very positive role model on the team, but it was the coach's decision not to play him.  Said this on more than one occasion.  Except for that first game or two back after the injury, I have seen no lingering effects of an injury.  The game he missed earlier was due to illness, not injury.  I believe that it is the team's decsion to go in a differant direction and the coach seems to prefer your more traditional high post center such as Paar, Ace and even Javy (who got decent playing time before his injury) than Toro.  It is also a legitimate argument as to whether Toro he should be playing more.   It should not be simply "look how improved we are, case closed."   Look, we have a KenPom rating of 210.  Most of us were probably thinking we would be closer to 300 if the coaching change hadn't been made, but we can still talk about how the coach can fit a very talented rebounder like Toro into his game plan.and maybe make us even higher ranked than we are.

Last edited by Long Suffering Fan (2/22/2020 1:38 pm)