We can blame Lavin for Hooper for not making more of an impact here but he did not make a dent at Harvard either and was not recruited heavily elsewhere. Lavin got more out of him than the Harvard coach. We will see how Hooper does at his next stop. Hooper's other shortcomings may simply be too great.
I thought Hooper should have seen more playing time. Even just as a decoy, he would open up the court for slashers. He was the only guy on our roster that defenses would have no choice but to play up in his grill at all times. The kid can shoot the ball although he did not get a great opportunity to show it here. I think he does well at a lower level.
There wasn't a single opponent that he was capable of guarding. You can hit 4 threes in a half, but if you give up 5 threes, and you can't contribute in any other way, how can you really justify being out there?
There are ways to compensate for having a player on the court who is a defensive liability. I can't recall him ever single handedly giving up 5 threes. I think the board is exaggerating how bad he actually was on defense. Not saying he should have played 25 min per game, but I personally would have liked seeing him get 10-15. We had many offensive droughts where having him out there could have definitely helped.
I'm not exaggerating. I watched him play on a number of occasions. He's the worst defender I've ever seen in an STJ uniform - and that includes the 03-04 team that played out the season with garbage.
Yes he's a bad defender, arguably not even worthy to be a division 1 defender. But, then again Steve Novak had no business playing defense in the NBA the year he torched the nets with the Knicks. Like I said, there are ways to compensate having a player on the court who is a liability in other areas.
Novak had as good of a college career as any player we've had in the last 15 years. I'd sign up for that.
I'm talking about his talent compared to his peers. Novak is arguably the worst defender in the NBA, that didn't stop him from being effective.
Also, we've had quite a few players in the last 15 years with better college careers than Novak.
Who would that be?
Well D'Angelo Harrison would be most recent.
Harrison has to play well down the stretch to be in the same category as a guy who was ready for big games throughout his career. I'd agree that Harrison was supposed to be better than Novak. So were a lot of our recruits. No post season, the career is pointless.
Harsh
Maybe so, but the ones who have "it" are ready for the spotlight when the pressure is on. Harrison has to be ready for the big games. If that's not the case, and I'm wrong, I'd welcome anyone who'd like to point out how.
And let me be clear, these last two seasons aren't on his shoulders. They lost as a team.