Good post! I largely agree with your grades.

Slim's grade is probably justified, but I can't hold not making first team/injury against him. It felt like he was on autopilot sometimes. There would be games/halves where he didn't get the ball enough, like against UNM. Every time he got the ball on Sunday it was near the FT line and I would scratch my head and wonder why he wasn't closer to the rim.

Like you said on Garrett, it feels wrong to critique a guy who has been through so much. However, once the ball gets to him the offense often became stagnant and if he wasn't getting to the rim the threes he'd take were often not the best quality. Wanted to see more spot-up ones instead of off the bounce. The defense just wasn't there either.

CJ was not as disruptive defensively as last year and his FT shooting is simply not good enough for a guard. He definitely needs to work on the FTs in the offseason to get it to at least 70%. I liked his drives to the rim, but finishing was often an issue. I also feel like he disappears for stretches of games (but you can say that for many on the team). Credit him for improving his ball handling and shot mechanics - both of those were better than last year.

I don't know how to assess Luke. Like CJ, sometimes he'd be featured at the very beginning of the half and then not really get the ball the rest of the time. The double big lineup never really seemed to work to the level I'm sure CC hoped. Jun and Slim had a lot more chemistry passing to each other in the post than Slim and Luke. I think Hunger could be a useful piece, but I'm just not sure about a starter because of his defense.

I would give Tyrone at least a B+, if not higher. He was impactful in darn near every area for the team. Wish his finishing at the rim was better at times. While the pass at the end of the Mason game was unfortunate, I enjoyed watching him when he was in the game and he seemed like the quintessential team-first guy which I respect a lot. Woo embraced coming off the bench to help the second unit even though a case could have been made to have him start all year.

Autry I might give a B-, which might be a bit harsh. Like that he contributes on the boards. He's a smart player who improved a bit defensively. However, the shot selection was not particularly good for a third year player. If the threes were not falling, he had too many games where he was a non-factor and GW couldn't really afford that. He was really good when cutting to the basket off the ball, but he didn't do that enough and that's a frustration I had with all the guards on the team. Also, as someone who usually doesn't have problems with celebrating made shots (I generally find them at least mildly amusing) watching Tricky celebrate every made shot got a bit annoying by the end of the year. I guess the team underperforming played a role.

Bubu is a D for me, and that would have been even lower if not for an injury. In the time that I write this, he's likely clanked yet another wide open three along the wing. His defense was decent, but not ground breaking. I guess I had higher expectations (and CC must have too since he began the year as a starter) but it never came together for one reason or another.

Not much to really add on Tre. I got the sense that he needed more consistent court time to get in a rhythm and that wasn't going to happen for him on this team. I'm not sure that the poor defense is due to a lack of effort, but he just wasn't impactful on that end and it was worse at times with all the switching CC wants on defense when Dinkins was put on a bigger player. Like you said, he was a non-factor inside the arc and his confidence was visibly shaken by the end of the year. He had the Garrett problem of the ball sticking on offense the second it came to him.

Jean was a good pickup. Loved his energy and effort out there, much like with Marshall. I think those two stuck out more for me because they embraced the physicality a lot better than others on the team.

I cannot give CC and staff higher than a C. Consider it a passing grade, but not one that exceeds expectations given the team he had this year. Personally, GW was fortunate to be invited to the NIT. CC is very smart with playing the analytics game given where GW ranks in the metrics but it certainly had the feel of a team that could blow out bad teams but not pull out wins against better competition. He was responsible for the recruiting, and I'm not sure how you have a 15 man roster with only two true 5s on it. Marshall did his best to plug those holes at times despite not having the height. Guards make a team, and yet again this year it felt like GW's were lacking. Way too perimeter-centric and not enough movement off ball. Defensively, the rotations were a step slow for a lot of the year (it was better towards the end) and for much of it I couldn't tell what the plan was outside of trapping up top. GW was a bit better at forcing turnovers in the last couple months, but I felt like that adjustment took a bit longer than it should have. The rebounding was admittedly very good despite the team being about average in the height department.

Offensively, like you said the NBA blueprint limited things at times. The 1-2 pass offense didn't really emphasize passing the ball and playing as a team, despite what the assist totals seemed to imply. An open shot didn't always equate to a good quality shot. It also wasn't a great sign that CC looked as stressed along the sideline as fans in a close game. I can't help but feel something is missing from the staff. I'm still pro-CC, but the reality is the team ended the year losing four straight second halves by double digits, and since he's taken over as coach he has not won the second half of any A10 tournament game in six tries. You would think by accident at this point he would have won one after halftime at least once.

I'll continue to give credit to CC for how far GW has come both on the court and how the program is received. It wasn't too long ago that MBB was being compared to Fordham and La Salle, which is never a good thing. At least GW is in the conversation with teams in the middle of the conference. Last year's team would have had a better grade.
 

GW Alum Abroad wrote:

I have no real disagreements but (in the spirit of true GW fandom) do have some quibbles.
Johnson gets a higher grade after earning extra credit for making the single most important and intelligent play of the season; without his pass out of the trap against Fordham this board would be focused on the search for a new coach instead of being focused on how to build on the NIT bid. His good and calm decision making was missed in New Mexico.
Slim gets marked down a bit. Injury aside, against teams with a real inside physical presence his reach and arms skills could do only so much as he got pushed around. Blocking shots is good, denying the ball inside by clearing the lane is better.
Marshall benefits from grade inflation based on his monster performance at Utah Valley. But if you are going to chide Caputo for the loss at Mason, you have to assign blame to Marshall, too. Uneven play all season.
BuBu was about what I expected, but then again I did not buy in to the hype. His suspect footwork was obvious from the exhibition against That School Down the Street, and did not rise to the A10 level outside of minor spurts on rare occasions. 
Luke before the Castro injury was on pace to be a poor man´s Alberto Roma, then transformed into a poor man´s Anxton Iturbe, then was injured for perhaps the one game where he was most needed (at UNM). Probably the hardest player to grade.
As for Caputo, the first half of the two NIT games aside, he cannot get anything better than a "C". Remember the loss to (a terrible) Loyola Chicago? Getting beat at home by Delaware? Losing to Fordham (and then almost losing to them in the A10s-- see Johnson)? It might be a bit premature for him to put a down payment on a Cleveland Park townhouse. Stubborn is good if you are a proven hit record producer, not so good if you are a coach one miraculous pass away from losing to Fordham in the first round of the A10 Tourney.

No real disagreements on the players.  It’s all subjective as you say. Have to agree with GWAA and Mayhem on Caputo. C is generous in my mind. We had 3 quad 4 losses and his in game performance and ability to change things up and adjust would barely be a passing grade in my view. Most damning to me was his inability to get players to improve and be more cohesive as a team as the year went on.  That’s the mark of a good coach in my view - someone who coaches a team up, gets them to improve over the course of a season. To me the NIT was no “step in the right direction, and I measure this season in “opportunity cost.”  We vastly underperformed with the talent that was assembled. A good coach doesn’t have that problem. I’d have to go with a generous.C-.

Last edited by Alum1 (3/26/2026 10:25 pm)

Mayhem --- Thanks for your thoughtful grading post.  A few small differences...  I think Marshall was the best player on the team and a great transfer pick up...That doesn't mean he should have been all-conference, but he is a legit D1 player. I would give him the A- and give Jean the B.  Jean got into foul trouble too many time being over aggressive which cost us since the other point guard options were so bad...  I think Slim and Johnson were both overrated.  Not sure all the goings on behind the scenes (injuries etc..), but Johnson did not look like a solid D1 player (too slow on offense and defense).  Slim was great against lesser talent, but perhaps too slim to compete at a high level.  While Caputo is responsible for the roster, I think we place too much blame on him for the outcomes of several games --- the team lacked talent.  I really fail to understand why so many think we underperformed.  Perhaps we underperformed relative to the hype of the athletic dept and Caputo (trying to get people to come to the games), but c'mon, I don't really see many other coaches getting more out of this talent base.... do you?  But it is fun to read other perspectives....

First and foremost, great job Liam and David all season long.  It's a unique situation to have a school located within a major market and within a top 10 basketball conference and yet be so underrepresented in the media.  How ever many of us there are, you should know that quite a few GW fanatics look forward to reading your thoughts and listening to your podcasts.  Please keep it going next season as I would be left to wonder who would if you guys didn't.

I think a common misconception regarding this team is confusing "having more talent" with "having enough talent."  I agree that this team's goals should have been to win the A10 Tournament or otherwise make the Dance.  We all got caught up in November with this team's depth based on a 5-0 start which including four convincing wins and a dogfight victory over a very good South Florida team.  Where I am going to take exception with you is your premise that this team had enough talent to achieve its goals.  When I watched VCU and SLU perform in March, I could not foresee a scenario where this GW team would have come back against UNC or blown out Georgia.  Slim was not a dependable 20/10 guy which meant that other players truly needed to step up.  Tre and Garrett were next in line to do so but their erratic performances led to their coming off the bench.  Aranguren/Jones/Autry are all combo guards that weren't as proficient playing the point on both ends of the floor as we would have ideally liked.  A frontcourt of Slim/Luke/Woo/Bubu was serviceable but far from amongst the top frontcourts in the conference.  Again, what clouds this issue is the comparison to prior CC teams, where there was clearly more talent and depth this past season.  However, when you go 2-11 vs. Q1 and Q2 teams, it's hard not to conclude that this team had enough talent to beat teams they were supposed to beat (for the most part) but struggled against teams that had more talent.    There were some tough breaks..perhaps a healthy Slim would have resulted in victories over Fordham, St. Joe's and Duquesne.