@ Providence Game Thread

Agree

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on February 05, 2014, 09:33:54 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on February 05, 2014, 09:15:30 PM

I think most of us like Phil .

I don't think that's the case.  Particularly not so when we are losing.  I feel "backup quarterback" syndrome and me as his primary spokesperson are the main reasons for that.

It's not backup quarterback syndrome when the two guys who have taken his spot in the lineup have been outstanding and have led us to a nice streak.

Here we go again.  Sorry everyone...but I can't let falsehoods just pass as fact.

By "two guys"...I assume your referring to Rysheed and the Aggie.  Excluding the Butler game,  where Phil did not play due to illness and we had a disgraceful rash of derisive posts concerning his absence, Rysheed has played significant minutes averaging 29 per game during this streak of positive play.  Rhombus has averaged 20 minutes per game during the streak and the Aggie has averaged 17 per game.  20 > 17 by the way.

I'm sure there are college rosters through out the land full of players that wouldn't mind having their 'spot in the lineup taken' to the tune of 20 minutes per game. 

But please,  don't let facts get in the way of a poor argument.

 
 

 

Quote from: Poison on February 05, 2014, 07:48:11 PM

You don't seem to respond to posts about Greene.

My apologies.  I didn't see a specific question posed.  If I look introspectively at why I've made 700 posts about Phil Greene, the top 3 reasons would be:

1) I'm a glutton for punishment.
2) I have no life.
3) I always respond to direct inquiries posed to me.

I've felt recently when I've made some outstanding pro-Greene arguments and asked specific questions to illicit a response to these points, they've been conveniently ignored by the anti-Greene camp.  Perhaps a strong tactic for a position of weakness but doesn't make for much of a debate.

I'll always respond to direct inquiries.

Quote

If you like him as a point guard, ok then, fine. How about actually explaining why he should be the point guard.

I haven't written that the Square should be the starting point guard once this entire season!  I don't know where you got that idea from.  I've posted on many occasions that I feel his talents are best suited to the shooting guard position.  In this very thread I wrote "Hollywood is embracing the 3 guard lineup more and more.  One with IV in it is what I'm in favor of. "  In hindsight it's not crystal clear but by 3 guard lineup I was referring to the obvious, i.e. one with Rysheed manning the point and IV as the 2 or 3 guard.

Question: Did you really think that I thought Phil should be the starting point guard till just right now? I do have a lot of posts out there saying the opposite.

Greene isn't a point guard. He isn't a 2 guard either. If he's not starting because he's running the offense, and he's not starting play the 2, then why on earth is he starting?

I don't know what outstanding points you've made regarding Greene. The only way to defend his playing time, is that sometimes when Harrison and Jordan are struggling, Greene can pick up the scoring slack. THAT is why he should be coming off of the bench. Starting him puts a below average defender on the floor. It makes us small in a conference with few big teams, and gives the opposing team an advantage when zone us, because Greene has no answer for the zone.

Lavin's morinic 3 guard line up isn't crystal clear. That's true, because for most of the season, Greene didn't realize that he wasn't the PG. He brings it up consistently only to do nothing with it. Ideally, he'd have been a solid player for Southern Illinois or Illinois State. This level, is one level too high for him. Here, he's not good to start, but alas he does anyway.

 I don't even think you guys know what you're arguing anymore with this whole Greene thing..

 We need to Phil to play 20 most nights because usually one of the 3 is in foul trouble ( Harrison, Jordan, Branch),  I think he's a solid 3 guard, when he isn't playing point.

 

If he's not starting because he's running the offense, and he's not starting play the 2, then why on earth is he starting?

Because when he starts against Providence, on the road no less,  we go up 12 - 4 at the first TV timeout.  When he doesn't start against Providence, at home no less,  we go down 14 - 2.  He started and we produced a 53 point half.  It's silly to complain about strategies that work.  Do you complain when your stocks go up and when your scratch off produces a winner as well?

Plus, re-read the definition of 3 guard lineup.  It sort of requires 3 guards.

I don't know what outstanding points you've made regarding Greene.

The outstanding point I made regarding Greene came after you had incorrectly posted that Greene only scores against the Monmouths or Webb Institutes or Yeshiva Universities of the world.  I replied by posting many of the games he's scored well against more well respected college programs.  In the same thread I posted many games he's been our team Mvp.  Against mid-majors,  nationally ranked teams and strong conference foes alike.  How could you forget that?

Starting him puts a below average defender on the floor.

He is an above average defender.  He's either our first or second best guard defender.  Need to see more of Rysheed before I decide.  Don't even think his most ardent detractors have 3'lo and the Aggie ahead of him here.

because Greene has no answer for the zone.

Seems odd that you point to the player that leads the team in 3 point percentage, 40%, as having no answer for the zone.  That usually is the answer.

He brings it up consistently only to do nothing with it.

He's played much less point this season than during his 1st two seasons.  We might be watching different teams or talking about different players.

Ideally, he'd have been a solid player for Southern Illinois or Illinois State.   .

He's a solid player for St. Johns University.

Here, he's not good to start, but alas he does anyway

Don't worry so much about who starts.  We have four talented guards and it looks like all of them will get their shot down the stretch.  Phil started and we came flying out of the gate.  If I didn't know better,  I would think you're complaining just to hear yourself complain.

I don't even think you guys know what you're arguing anymore with this whole Greene thing..

I know why I'm arguing.  Because truth is a virtue of an in itself.

Quote from: boo3 on February 05, 2014, 10:17:34 PM

I don't even think you guys know what you're arguing anymore with this whole Greene thing..

I know why I'm arguing.  Because truth is a virtue of an in itself.

Is that the same as truth is a virtue in and of itself? 

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on February 06, 2014, 12:12:53 AM

Quote from: boo3 on February 05, 2014, 10:17:34 PM

I don't even think you guys know what you're arguing anymore with this whole Greene thing..

I know why I'm arguing.  Because truth is a virtue of an in itself.

Is that the same as truth is a virtue in and of itself? 

Similar.

Quote from: STJ11Redmen on February 05, 2014, 09:36:44 PM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on February 05, 2014, 09:33:54 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on February 05, 2014, 09:15:30 PM

I think most of us like Phil .

I don't think that's the case.  Particularly not so when we are losing.  I feel "backup quarterback" syndrome and me as his primary spokesperson are the main reasons for that.

It's not backup quarterback syndrome when the two guys who have taken his spot in the lineup have been outstanding and have led us to a nice streak.

Here we go again.  Sorry everyone...but I can't let falsehoods just pass as fact.

By "two guys"...I assume your referring to Rysheed and the Aggie.  Excluding the Butler game,  where Phil did not play due to illness and we had a disgraceful rash of derisive posts concerning his absence, Rysheed has played significant minutes averaging 29 per game during this streak of positive play.  Rhombus has averaged 20 minutes per game during the streak and the Aggie has averaged 17 per game.  20 > 17 by the way.

I'm sure there are college rosters through out the land full of players that wouldn't mind having their 'spot in the lineup taken' to the tune of 20 minutes per game. 

But please,  don't let facts get in the way of a poor argument.

 
 

 

29+17 equals no playing time at point for Phil. Thats his point I believe.

Quote from: Poison on February 05, 2014, 10:13:55 PM

If he's not starting because he's running the offense, and he's not starting play the 2, then why on earth is he starting?

Because when he starts against Providence, on the road no less,  we go up 12 - 4 at the first TV timeout.  When he doesn't start against Providence, at home no less,  we go down 14 - 2.  He started and we produced a 53 point half.  It's silly to complain about strategies that work.  Do you complain when your stocks go up and when your scratch off produces a winner as well?

Plus, re-read the definition of 3 guard lineup.  It sort of requires 3 guards.

Quote

I don't know what outstanding points you've made regarding Greene.

The outstanding point I made regarding Greene came after you had incorrectly posted that Greene only scores against the Monmouths or Webb Institutes or Yeshiva Universities of the world.  I replied by posting many of the games he's scored well against more well respected college programs.  In the same thread I posted many games he's been our team Mvp.  Against mid-majors,  nationally ranked teams and strong conference foes alike.  How could you forget that?

Quote

Starting him puts a below average defender on the floor.

He is an above average defender.  He's either our first or second best guard defender.  Need to see more of Rysheed before I decide.  Don't even think his most ardent detractors have 3'lo and the Aggie ahead of him here.

Quote

because Greene has no answer for the zone.

Seems odd that you point to the player that leads the team in 3 point percentage, 40%, as having no answer for the zone.  That usually is the answer.

Quote

He brings it up consistently only to do nothing with it.

He's played much less point this season than during his 1st two seasons.  We might be watching different teams or talking about different players.

Quote

Ideally, he'd have been a solid player for Southern Illinois or Illinois State.   .

He's a solid player for St. Johns University.

Quote

Here, he's not good to start, but alas he does anyway

Don't worry so much about who starts.  We have four talented guards and it looks like all of them will get their shot down the stretch.  Phil started and we came flying out of the gate.  If I didn't know better,  I would think you're complaining just to hear yourself complain.

Um, no. I make points, and back them up with numbers, and then you act as if something entirely different happened. So, you say Greene's 3 point shooting is the way for us to beat the zone? Let's see if the numbers tell the same story that you're telling.

Syracuse - 1 - 6 from the floor, 0-3 from 3 point range. Total Points - 2 in 18 minutes (1 assist, 0 turnovers)
Georgetown - 3-7 from the floor, 0-0 from 3 point range, Total Points - 7 in 18 minutes (0 assists, 1 turnover)
Xavier - 2-6 from the floor, 1-2 from 3 point range, Total Points - 6 in 23 minutes (1 assist, 1 turnover)
Nova - 2-8 from the floor, 0-3 from 3 point range, Total Points - 4 in 26 minutes (0 assists, 0 turnovers)
Creighton - 2-6 from the floor, 0-3 from 3 point range, Total Points - 4 in 19 minutes (1 assist, 0 turnovers)

That's a pretty ugly stat line. 10-33 from the floor.

Against Providence at Alumni Hall, Greene played well. He scored 15 points on 7-16 shooting, and pulled down 4 boards. But seriously, if you're a guard of any sort, how can you play 38 minutes of basketball and not record a single assist? 

So, you say Greene's 3 point shooting is the way for us to beat the zone?

No, I never said that.  Your post is flawed from the get go.

Less Phil Greene is more Phil Greene.

He is definitely needed on this team but when he tries to do too much is when his flaws become magnified.

My big beef with Greene is that he holds onto the ball for too long. I could live with a turnover here and there from Branch because he makes quick decisions with the ball. When Greene gets it he holds.....he dribbles.....then he passes to the open man and it is too late. There was a stretch of 5 games where he didn't record an assist.

Greene is very good in transition and when he can get in the paint I feel very good about his pull up fade or floater. That is cash! Also when Greene is wide open he usually drains it from deep. There will be times where his number will be called but he was recruited here to be a combo off the bench and that is exactly what he should be.

Less Phil Greene is more Phil Greene.

He is definitely needed on this team but when he tries to do too much is when his flaws become magnified.

My big beef with Greene is that he holds onto the ball for too long. I could live with a turnover here and there from Branch because he makes quick decisions with the ball. When Greene gets it he holds.....he dribbles.....then he passes to the open man and it is too late. There was a stretch of 5 games where he didn't record an assist.

Greene is very good in transition and when he can get in the paint I feel very good about his pull up fade or floater. That is cash! Also when Greene is wide open he usually drains it from deep. There will be times where his number will be called but he was recruited here to be a combo off the bench and that is exactly what he should be.

If you notice, Greene is only good in transition when he's taking it to the rack himself, and even that is rare. The offense has taken longer to develop, because when the ball is in his hands, it simply doesn't move. It's the Brian Mahoney offense with Derek Brown.

Your point about Greene holding onto to the ball for too long is spot on. Many people here, myself included have been saying that. He's a serviceable player as a reserve, and potentially a very good role player, but he shouldn't be starting, because the offense is stagnate with him involved. He's not very good at stopping the ball on defense or at defending the 3. To be fair, it seems like no STJ player is.

My hope is that Pointer finally gets comfortable with his role and looks to create offense for others, and be a ball hawk on defense. Greene can't really help much unless he's having a hot shooting night, and he's had 2 in the last two months.

But seriously, if you're a guard of any sort, how can you play 38 minutes of basketball and not record a single assist? 

It's more common than you think.  For instance,  in the very same contest you reference here, our best player D'angelo Harrison went 43 minutes without an assist.

I've been called a Harrison apologist and everyone is bound to have favorites.  But this Greene stuff is out of control Carmine.

the offense is stagnate with him involved.

I may have come up with the perfect analogy. Let me know what you think: in our offense Phil Greene is akin to a root growing in a sewer pipe. The offense is full of shit and Phil is something green clogging it up. 

Greene can't really help much unless he's having a hot shooting night,

That's bull.  In the Providence victory,  which he started and helped set the tone with a great start, he had 4 pts, 4 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 steal and 1 blocked shot in only 18 minutes of play.  If he wasn't Costco...he was BJ's!

My big beef with Greene is that he holds onto the ball for too long. I could live with a turnover here and there from Branch because he makes quick decisions with the ball. When Greene gets it he holds.....he dribbles.....then he passes to the open man and it is too late. There was a stretch of 5 games where he didn't record an assist.

Is it possible that this is a habit that he's developed in this his junior year?  He had a team leading 97 assists his first year and a team second 85 assists last season.  Is it possible that a players decision making ability and ability to pass in a timely fashion regresses throughout his career?

But this Greene stuff is out of control Carmine.

Sorry Moose.  I'll try and tone it down.  But when people post lies about my fav...I find it difficult to not correct them. 

Despite opinion to the contrary, I'm actually quite realistic in my opinion of the ellipse. I've never once said he was the best player on the team,  or the best guard on the team, or that he should be an all-conference selection if not for a coaches blacklist,  or even that he isn't an inconsistent performer capable of poor outings.

But he has never once directly cost us a game with bonehead plays as Sir with no Love, Jakarr and Crimson have this season.  Yet he takes more heat than any other player. 

Quote from: Poison on February 06, 2014, 10:38:48 AM

the offense is stagnate with him involved.

I may have come up with the perfect analogy. Let me know what you think: in our offense Phil Greene is akin to a root growing in a sewer pipe. The offense is full of shit and Phil is something green clogging it up. 

I like it.