Max Hooper

[monte]

Marco has a far more fluid shot than Max. Max always looks off balance to me when he's shooting. Marco is also more athletic. In limited minutes, Marco is shooting at a far higher clip than Max. The only reason that I can think of that Max is getting the minutes is that Lavin is hoping that Max makes a few shots and validates all those accolades that Lavin heaped upon him.

Lavin heaped the same praise on Marco last year. I sat at a dinner where he uttered the name of Steve Kerr.

Max plays because he is a sophomore and also plays the 3 as opposed to Marco who is stuck having to compete with the glut of guards we have (Dee, Phil, Sheed, Branch)

Marco shouldn't have to compete with anyone but Max for PT

 

[Moose]

Marco has a far more fluid shot than Max. Max always looks off balance to me when he's shooting. Marco is also more athletic. In limited minutes, Marco is shooting at a far higher clip than Max. The only reason that I can think of that Max is getting the minutes is that Lavin is hoping that Max makes a few shots and validates all those accolades that Lavin heaped upon him.

Lavin heaped the same praise on Marco last year. I sat at a dinner where he uttered the name of Steve Kerr.

Max plays because he is a sophomore and also plays the 3 as opposed to Marco who is stuck having to compete with the glut of guards we have (Dee, Phil, Sheed, Branch)

Marco shouldn't have to compete with anyone but Max for PT

Roster balance, or inbalance in this case.

 

[beast of the east]

Marco has a far more fluid shot than Max. Max always looks off balance to me when he's shooting. Marco is also more athletic. In limited minutes, Marco is shooting at a far higher clip than Max. The only reason that I can think of that Max is getting the minutes is that Lavin is hoping that Max makes a few shots and validates all those accolades that Lavin heaped upon him.

Lavin heaped the same praise on Marco last year. I sat at a dinner where he uttered the name of Steve Kerr.

Max plays because he is a sophomore and also plays the 3 as opposed to Marco who is stuck having to compete with the glut of guards we have (Dee, Phil, Sheed, Branch)

Marco is listed at 6'7". Max at least has demonstrated in 3 game situations - Europe, GT and Penn State that he can get into a rhythm and nail multiple threes. Marco, who I think is a skilled player who will have a long career in Europe, has yet to prove that he can make shots as consistently as Max. Marco can put the ball on the floor and go to the basket. Both however, are pretty useless if they aren't scoring.

 

[monte]

Marco has a far more fluid shot than Max. Max always looks off balance to me when he's shooting. Marco is also more athletic. In limited minutes, Marco is shooting at a far higher clip than Max. The only reason that I can think of that Max is getting the minutes is that Lavin is hoping that Max makes a few shots and validates all those accolades that Lavin heaped upon him.

Lavin heaped the same praise on Marco last year. I sat at a dinner where he uttered the name of Steve Kerr.

Max plays because he is a sophomore and also plays the 3 as opposed to Marco who is stuck having to compete with the glut of guards we have (Dee, Phil, Sheed, Branch)

Marco is listed at 6'7". Max at least has demonstrated in 3 game situations - Europe, GT and Penn State that he can get into a rhythm and nail multiple threes. Marco, who I think is a skilled player who will have a long career in Europe, has yet to prove that he can make shots as consistently as Max. Marco can put the ball on the floor and go to the basket. Both however, are pretty useless if they aren't scoring.

Fair assessment, but Marco has hardly been given the opportunity to get in to a rhythm.

 

[Moose]

Marco has a far more fluid shot than Max. Max always looks off balance to me when he's shooting. Marco is also more athletic. In limited minutes, Marco is shooting at a far higher clip than Max. The only reason that I can think of that Max is getting the minutes is that Lavin is hoping that Max makes a few shots and validates all those accolades that Lavin heaped upon him.

Lavin heaped the same praise on Marco last year. I sat at a dinner where he uttered the name of Steve Kerr.

Max plays because he is a sophomore and also plays the 3 as opposed to Marco who is stuck having to compete with the glut of guards we have (Dee, Phil, Sheed, Branch)

Marco is listed at 6'7". Max at least has demonstrated in 3 game situations - Europe, GT and Penn State that he can get into a rhythm and nail multiple threes. Marco, who I think is a skilled player who will have a long career in Europe, has yet to prove that he can make shots as consistently as Max. Marco can put the ball on the floor and go to the basket. Both however, are pretty useless if they aren't scoring.

Fair assessment, but Marco has hardly been given the opportunity to get in to a rhythm.

Because coach's favorites like Phil are waiting in the wings. Last year what were Marco's best games? When Branch was hurt shortening the backcourt rotation. And we were struggling offensively and he hit a few shots and got in rhythm

 

[beast of the east]

Marco has a far more fluid shot than Max. Max always looks off balance to me when he's shooting. Marco is also more athletic. In limited minutes, Marco is shooting at a far higher clip than Max. The only reason that I can think of that Max is getting the minutes is that Lavin is hoping that Max makes a few shots and validates all those accolades that Lavin heaped upon him.

Lavin heaped the same praise on Marco last year. I sat at a dinner where he uttered the name of Steve Kerr.

Max plays because he is a sophomore and also plays the 3 as opposed to Marco who is stuck having to compete with the glut of guards we have (Dee, Phil, Sheed, Branch)

Marco is listed at 6'7". Max at least has demonstrated in 3 game situations - Europe, GT and Penn State that he can get into a rhythm and nail multiple threes. Marco, who I think is a skilled player who will have a long career in Europe, has yet to prove that he can make shots as consistently as Max. Marco can put the ball on the floor and go to the basket. Both however, are pretty useless if they aren't scoring.

Fair assessment, but Marco has hardly been given the opportunity to get in to a rhythm.

Here's my best comparison: If Max got into Harvard on academics, he will likely have a far more successful career off the court than Marco. Marco on the other hand, if he stays in the US, will get far more girls. The accent does it every time, and his brother claimed in an article last year that in his teens Marco was dating models 6-7 years older than he was. I don't feel sorry for either

 

[Marillac]

I like that Max got a lot of burn in a meaningful game. He is still adjusting to the crazy speed level and has a lot of expectations every time he enters the game. He doesn't just have to hit shots to make an impact. He had a couple nice passes and he stresses the defense. His man won't move an inch to help if Sanchez or Sampson faced up their man underneath him. They should take advantage of that more.

 

[postell25]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

 

[SJU14]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

I actually think the exact opposite. When I see him on the floor, he is the only one running back door and setting screens at the top of the key to get open. Everybody else seems to be standing waiting for something to happen.

 

[beast of the east]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

I actually think the exact opposite. When I see him on the floor, he is the only one running back door and setting screens at the top of the key to get open. Everybody else seems to be standing waiting for something to happen.

Unless Max is scoring consistently, making his shots like a deadeye shooter, there are far better basketball players to distribute minutes to. I am becoming convinced with each passing game where he sees daylight that he will not be a serious contributor to a winning team here. If he was the kind of consistent threat we think he is, why did he only get 3 minutes a game at Harvard?

 

[logen]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

I actually think the exact opposite. When I see him on the floor, he is the only one running back door and setting screens at the top of the key to get open. Everybody else seems to be standing waiting for something to happen.

Unless Max is scoring consistently, making his shots like a deadeye shooter, there are far better basketball players to distribute minutes to. I am becoming convinced with each passing game where he sees daylight that he will not be a serious contributor to a winning team here. If he was the kind of consistent threat we think he is, why did he only get 3 minutes a game at Harvard?

Really, there are far better "basketball players"? There are better athletes but I wonder if we even have 5 basketball players on this TEAM. We might win a tournament of one on one but basketball is a game of chemistry and cohesion; not individual moves. I have not formed a solid opinion on Hooper but thinking as a coach I can't ignore the fact that in the last two games we have had our three best stretches AS A TEAM when he was on the floor. I have no idea if that is coincedence or meaningful but it is a fact. Me, I would start Hooper over Greene tonight and see what happened. A poster on this or another thread criticized Hooper for either shooting or getting rid of the ball quickly; on a team that by and large refuses to share the ball that is a huge positive. As for defense, in three extended periods of play, he has hurt us far less than our "better basketball players." Again, I don't know if Hooper can play at this level but I do know what happened in the Nova and DePaul games. As for Harvard, what difference does it make and believe me, Tommy Amaker is far from perfect. Just ask just about anyone who played for him at Seton Hall how big his doghouse was.; I have heard personally even the players who GOT a ton of minutes comment as to how spiteful he was if he didn't take to you.

 

[beast of the east]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

I actually think the exact opposite. When I see him on the floor, he is the only one running back door and setting screens at the top of the key to get open. Everybody else seems to be standing waiting for something to happen.

Unless Max is scoring consistently, making his shots like a deadeye shooter, there are far better basketball players to distribute minutes to. I am becoming convinced with each passing game where he sees daylight that he will not be a serious contributor to a winning team here. If he was the kind of consistent threat we think he is, why did he only get 3 minutes a game at Harvard?

Really, there are far better "basketball players"? There are better athletes but I wonder if we even have 5 basketball players on this TEAM. We might win a tournament of one on one but basketball is a game of chemistry and cohesion; not individual moves. I have not formed a solid opinion on Hooper but thinking as a coach I can't ignore the fact that in the last two games we have had our three best stretches AS A TEAM when he was on the floor. I have no idea if that is coincedence or meaningful but it is a fact. Me, I would start Hooper over Greene tonight and see what happened. A poster on this or another thread criticized Hooper for either shooting or getting rid of the ball quickly; on a team that by and large refuses to share the ball that is a huge positive. As for defense, in three extended periods of play, he has hurt us far less than our "better basketball players." Again, I don't know if Hooper can play at this level but I do know what happened in the Nova and DePaul games. As for Harvard, what difference does it make and believe me, Tommy Amaker is far from perfect. Just ask just about anyone who played for him at Seton Hall how big his doghouse was.; I have heard personally even the players who GOT a ton of minutes comment as to how spiteful he was if he didn't take to you.

Do you really, really believe that Hooper helps us even when not scoring? He may have played reasonable defense (i.e. not get torched) but he's not a lock down defender. He doesn't play the passing lanes extremely well and anticipate and pick off passes. He doesn't double down low to steal the ball or create havoc when a big guy posts, or someone drives. He's not a lockdown defender. He certainly doesn't rebound well - his one rebound on Saturday literally fell into his hands because no one was around.

On offense, he does have basketball sense, and I've said that, but.. he doesn't penetrate and dish. He isn't a master of the 3 on 2 or 2 on 1 isolations that can occur in a halfcourt game that breakdown a defense. He doesn't attract so much attention that he spots cutters going to the hoop for easy baskets. He doesn't set weak side picks that free teammates for wide open shots.

I've seen a ton of players without athletic ability, including scores of Europeans, who can do many of these things without scoring. Hooper without a solid socring average is just a guy out there who isn't hurting you, but providing little else.

So, what's the fascination with the concept that he isn't hurting us when he's on the court, therefore he must be helping us?

I take it back. Obviously there are some people here, you included, who think he's really earning his minutes in games. The other guys may be sucking, but that's no reason to go to option C.

 

[monte]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

I actually think the exact opposite. When I see him on the floor, he is the only one running back door and setting screens at the top of the key to get open. Everybody else seems to be standing waiting for something to happen.

Unless Max is scoring consistently, making his shots like a deadeye shooter, there are far better basketball players to distribute minutes to. I am becoming convinced with each passing game where he sees daylight that he will not be a serious contributor to a winning team here. If he was the kind of consistent threat we think he is, why did he only get 3 minutes a game at Harvard?

Because Harvard has about a dozen Max Hooper's on their roster, we only have one(not counting Marco)

 

[usguard]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

I actually think the exact opposite. When I see him on the floor, he is the only one running back door and setting screens at the top of the key to get open. Everybody else seems to be standing waiting for something to happen.

Unless Max is scoring consistently, making his shots like a deadeye shooter, there are far better basketball players to distribute minutes to. I am becoming convinced with each passing game where he sees daylight that he will not be a serious contributor to a winning team here. If he was the kind of consistent threat we think he is, why did he only get 3 minutes a game at Harvard?

Really, there are far better "basketball players"? There are better athletes but I wonder if we even have 5 basketball players on this TEAM. We might win a tournament of one on one but basketball is a game of chemistry and cohesion; not individual moves. I have not formed a solid opinion on Hooper but thinking as a coach I can't ignore the fact that in the last two games we have had our three best stretches AS A TEAM when he was on the floor. I have no idea if that is coincedence or meaningful but it is a fact. Me, I would start Hooper over Greene tonight and see what happened. A poster on this or another thread criticized Hooper for either shooting or getting rid of the ball quickly; on a team that by and large refuses to share the ball that is a huge positive. As for defense, in three extended periods of play, he has hurt us far less than our "better basketball players." Again, I don't know if Hooper can play at this level but I do know what happened in the Nova and DePaul games. As for Harvard, what difference does it make and believe me, Tommy Amaker is far from perfect. Just ask just about anyone who played for him at Seton Hall how big his doghouse was.; I have heard personally even the players who GOT a ton of minutes comment as to how spiteful he was if he didn't take to you.

Do you really, really believe that Hooper helps us even when not scoring? He may have played reasonable defense (i.e. not get torched) but he's not a lock down defender. He doesn't play the passing lanes extremely well and anticipate and pick off passes. He doesn't double down low to steal the ball or create havoc when a big guy posts, or someone drives. He's not a lockdown defender. He certainly doesn't rebound well - his one rebound on Saturday literally fell into his hands because no one was around.

On offense, he does have basketball sense, and I've said that, but.. he doesn't penetrate and dish. He isn't a master of the 3 on 2 or 2 on 1 isolations that can occur in a halfcourt game that breakdown a defense. He doesn't attract so much attention that he spots cutters going to the hoop for easy baskets. He doesn't set weak side picks that free teammates for wide open shots.

I've seen a ton of players without athletic ability, including scores of Europeans, who can do many of these things without scoring. Hooper without a solid socring average is just a guy out there who isn't hurting you, but providing little else.

So, what's the fascination with the concept that he isn't hurting us when he's on the court, therefore he must be helping us?

I take it back. Obviously there are some people here, you included, who think he's really earning his minutes in games. The other guys may be sucking, but that's no reason to go to option C.

We do not have a lock down defender Even Dom get burn a lot even from smaller guards The team is responsible for passing and dishing to an open man Not giving him the ball when he is covered If max played 30 min the would score at least 15 pts if set up properly and what we would get from his scoring I think would make up for his defense which I do not feel it is as bad as you make it out to be

 

[beast of the east]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

I actually think the exact opposite. When I see him on the floor, he is the only one running back door and setting screens at the top of the key to get open. Everybody else seems to be standing waiting for something to happen.

Unless Max is scoring consistently, making his shots like a deadeye shooter, there are far better basketball players to distribute minutes to. I am becoming convinced with each passing game where he sees daylight that he will not be a serious contributor to a winning team here. If he was the kind of consistent threat we think he is, why did he only get 3 minutes a game at Harvard?

Really, there are far better "basketball players"? There are better athletes but I wonder if we even have 5 basketball players on this TEAM. We might win a tournament of one on one but basketball is a game of chemistry and cohesion; not individual moves. I have not formed a solid opinion on Hooper but thinking as a coach I can't ignore the fact that in the last two games we have had our three best stretches AS A TEAM when he was on the floor. I have no idea if that is coincedence or meaningful but it is a fact. Me, I would start Hooper over Greene tonight and see what happened. A poster on this or another thread criticized Hooper for either shooting or getting rid of the ball quickly; on a team that by and large refuses to share the ball that is a huge positive. As for defense, in three extended periods of play, he has hurt us far less than our "better basketball players." Again, I don't know if Hooper can play at this level but I do know what happened in the Nova and DePaul games. As for Harvard, what difference does it make and believe me, Tommy Amaker is far from perfect. Just ask just about anyone who played for him at Seton Hall how big his doghouse was.; I have heard personally even the players who GOT a ton of minutes comment as to how spiteful he was if he didn't take to you.

Do you really, really believe that Hooper helps us even when not scoring? He may have played reasonable defense (i.e. not get torched) but he's not a lock down defender. He doesn't play the passing lanes extremely well and anticipate and pick off passes. He doesn't double down low to steal the ball or create havoc when a big guy posts, or someone drives. He's not a lockdown defender. He certainly doesn't rebound well - his one rebound on Saturday literally fell into his hands because no one was around.

On offense, he does have basketball sense, and I've said that, but.. he doesn't penetrate and dish. He isn't a master of the 3 on 2 or 2 on 1 isolations that can occur in a halfcourt game that breakdown a defense. He doesn't attract so much attention that he spots cutters going to the hoop for easy baskets. He doesn't set weak side picks that free teammates for wide open shots.

I've seen a ton of players without athletic ability, including scores of Europeans, who can do many of these things without scoring. Hooper without a solid socring average is just a guy out there who isn't hurting you, but providing little else.

So, what's the fascination with the concept that he isn't hurting us when he's on the court, therefore he must be helping us?

I take it back. Obviously there are some people here, you included, who think he's really earning his minutes in games. The other guys may be sucking, but that's no reason to go to option C.

If max played 30 min the would score at least 15 pts if set up properly and what we would get from his scoring I think would make up for his defense which I do not feel it is as bad as you make it out to be

In D2

 

[SJU14]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

I actually think the exact opposite. When I see him on the floor, he is the only one running back door and setting screens at the top of the key to get open. Everybody else seems to be standing waiting for something to happen.

Unless Max is scoring consistently, making his shots like a deadeye shooter, there are far better basketball players to distribute minutes to. I am becoming convinced with each passing game where he sees daylight that he will not be a serious contributor to a winning team here. If he was the kind of consistent threat we think he is, why did he only get 3 minutes a game at Harvard?

Really, there are far better "basketball players"? There are better athletes but I wonder if we even have 5 basketball players on this TEAM. We might win a tournament of one on one but basketball is a game of chemistry and cohesion; not individual moves. I have not formed a solid opinion on Hooper but thinking as a coach I can't ignore the fact that in the last two games we have had our three best stretches AS A TEAM when he was on the floor. I have no idea if that is coincedence or meaningful but it is a fact. Me, I would start Hooper over Greene tonight and see what happened. A poster on this or another thread criticized Hooper for either shooting or getting rid of the ball quickly; on a team that by and large refuses to share the ball that is a huge positive. As for defense, in three extended periods of play, he has hurt us far less than our "better basketball players." Again, I don't know if Hooper can play at this level but I do know what happened in the Nova and DePaul games. As for Harvard, what difference does it make and believe me, Tommy Amaker is far from perfect. Just ask just about anyone who played for him at Seton Hall how big his doghouse was.; I have heard personally even the players who GOT a ton of minutes comment as to how spiteful he was if he didn't take to you.

Do you really, really believe that Hooper helps us even when not scoring? He may have played reasonable defense (i.e. not get torched) but he's not a lock down defender. He doesn't play the passing lanes extremely well and anticipate and pick off passes. He doesn't double down low to steal the ball or create havoc when a big guy posts, or someone drives. He's not a lockdown defender. He certainly doesn't rebound well - his one rebound on Saturday literally fell into his hands because no one was around.

On offense, he does have basketball sense, and I've said that, but.. he doesn't penetrate and dish. He isn't a master of the 3 on 2 or 2 on 1 isolations that can occur in a halfcourt game that breakdown a defense. He doesn't attract so much attention that he spots cutters going to the hoop for easy baskets. He doesn't set weak side picks that free teammates for wide open shots.

I've seen a ton of players without athletic ability, including scores of Europeans, who can do many of these things without scoring. Hooper without a solid socring average is just a guy out there who isn't hurting you, but providing little else.

So, what's the fascination with the concept that he isn't hurting us when he's on the court, therefore he must be helping us?

I take it back. Obviously there are some people here, you included, who think he's really earning his minutes in games. The other guys may be sucking, but that's no reason to go to option C.

If max played 30 min the would score at least 15 pts if set up properly and what we would get from his scoring I think would make up for his defense which I do not feel it is as bad as you make it out to be

In D2

I'm confused on who you think these "better basketball players" are. From what I've seen from these guys the last three years, there are only about 3-4 guys who should be considered "better basketball players" (high IQ, high skill). Hooper shouldn't be getting bashed on by posters for passing too quick when he is in the game to shoot the 3. If he's not open, he passes the ball. Isn't that what he is supposed to do? He's one of the only one's on the team that actually plays to his strengths and uses his personal skillset the right way.

 

[simplyred]

I see posters who think Hooper is a savior and others who think he doesn't belong on a D1 roster. I guess fan boards are meant for hyperbolic extremists but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. He can give us some points and open up the floor a bit but he is not going to turn us into NC contenders.

Some posters think Branch doesn't belong on the court, while others think he is the answer to all of our woes. The same for Phil. Things like that are why I don't criticize the coaching staff too much. We all see what we want to see. Since the coaching staff has a better vantage point than me, I assume they know something I don't. My favorite player on the team has been Sir'Dom but he has killed us lately. His turnover, followed by the flagrant, is one of the plays that cost us the Depaul game. We had so many unforced turnovers in that game. You can watch a game and see how missed opportunities and dumb plays throughout the game are going to cost us in the end.

 

[monte]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

I actually think the exact opposite. When I see him on the floor, he is the only one running back door and setting screens at the top of the key to get open. Everybody else seems to be standing waiting for something to happen.

Unless Max is scoring consistently, making his shots like a deadeye shooter, there are far better basketball players to distribute minutes to. I am becoming convinced with each passing game where he sees daylight that he will not be a serious contributor to a winning team here. If he was the kind of consistent threat we think he is, why did he only get 3 minutes a game at Harvard?

Really, there are far better "basketball players"? There are better athletes but I wonder if we even have 5 basketball players on this TEAM. We might win a tournament of one on one but basketball is a game of chemistry and cohesion; not individual moves. I have not formed a solid opinion on Hooper but thinking as a coach I can't ignore the fact that in the last two games we have had our three best stretches AS A TEAM when he was on the floor. I have no idea if that is coincedence or meaningful but it is a fact. Me, I would start Hooper over Greene tonight and see what happened. A poster on this or another thread criticized Hooper for either shooting or getting rid of the ball quickly; on a team that by and large refuses to share the ball that is a huge positive. As for defense, in three extended periods of play, he has hurt us far less than our "better basketball players." Again, I don't know if Hooper can play at this level but I do know what happened in the Nova and DePaul games. As for Harvard, what difference does it make and believe me, Tommy Amaker is far from perfect. Just ask just about anyone who played for him at Seton Hall how big his doghouse was.; I have heard personally even the players who GOT a ton of minutes comment as to how spiteful he was if he didn't take to you.

Do you really, really believe that Hooper helps us even when not scoring? He may have played reasonable defense (i.e. not get torched) but he's not a lock down defender. He doesn't play the passing lanes extremely well and anticipate and pick off passes. He doesn't double down low to steal the ball or create havoc when a big guy posts, or someone drives. He's not a lockdown defender. He certainly doesn't rebound well - his one rebound on Saturday literally fell into his hands because no one was around.

On offense, he does have basketball sense, and I've said that, but.. he doesn't penetrate and dish. He isn't a master of the 3 on 2 or 2 on 1 isolations that can occur in a halfcourt game that breakdown a defense. He doesn't attract so much attention that he spots cutters going to the hoop for easy baskets. He doesn't set weak side picks that free teammates for wide open shots.

I've seen a ton of players without athletic ability, including scores of Europeans, who can do many of these things without scoring. Hooper without a solid socring average is just a guy out there who isn't hurting you, but providing little else.

So, what's the fascination with the concept that he isn't hurting us when he's on the court, therefore he must be helping us?

I take it back. Obviously there are some people here, you included, who think he's really earning his minutes in games. The other guys may be sucking, but that's no reason to go to option C.

If max played 30 min the would score at least 15 pts if set up properly and what we would get from his scoring I think would make up for his defense which I do not feel it is as bad as you make it out to be

In D2

I'm confused on who you think these "better basketball players" are. From what I've seen from these guys the last three years, there are only about 3-4 guys who should be considered "better basketball players" (high IQ, high skill). Hooper shouldn't be getting bashed on by posters for passing too quick when he is in the game to shoot the 3. If he's not open, he passes the ball. Isn't that what he is supposed to do? He's one of the only one's on the team that actually plays to his strengths and uses his personal skillset the right way.

He really only has one strength, so it's not all that difficult for him to play to it.

 

[beast of the east]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

I actually think the exact opposite. When I see him on the floor, he is the only one running back door and setting screens at the top of the key to get open. Everybody else seems to be standing waiting for something to happen.

Unless Max is scoring consistently, making his shots like a deadeye shooter, there are far better basketball players to distribute minutes to. I am becoming convinced with each passing game where he sees daylight that he will not be a serious contributor to a winning team here. If he was the kind of consistent threat we think he is, why did he only get 3 minutes a game at Harvard?

Really, there are far better "basketball players"? There are better athletes but I wonder if we even have 5 basketball players on this TEAM. We might win a tournament of one on one but basketball is a game of chemistry and cohesion; not individual moves. I have not formed a solid opinion on Hooper but thinking as a coach I can't ignore the fact that in the last two games we have had our three best stretches AS A TEAM when he was on the floor. I have no idea if that is coincedence or meaningful but it is a fact. Me, I would start Hooper over Greene tonight and see what happened. A poster on this or another thread criticized Hooper for either shooting or getting rid of the ball quickly; on a team that by and large refuses to share the ball that is a huge positive. As for defense, in three extended periods of play, he has hurt us far less than our "better basketball players." Again, I don't know if Hooper can play at this level but I do know what happened in the Nova and DePaul games. As for Harvard, what difference does it make and believe me, Tommy Amaker is far from perfect. Just ask just about anyone who played for him at Seton Hall how big his doghouse was.; I have heard personally even the players who GOT a ton of minutes comment as to how spiteful he was if he didn't take to you.

Do you really, really believe that Hooper helps us even when not scoring? He may have played reasonable defense (i.e. not get torched) but he's not a lock down defender. He doesn't play the passing lanes extremely well and anticipate and pick off passes. He doesn't double down low to steal the ball or create havoc when a big guy posts, or someone drives. He's not a lockdown defender. He certainly doesn't rebound well - his one rebound on Saturday literally fell into his hands because no one was around.

On offense, he does have basketball sense, and I've said that, but.. he doesn't penetrate and dish. He isn't a master of the 3 on 2 or 2 on 1 isolations that can occur in a halfcourt game that breakdown a defense. He doesn't attract so much attention that he spots cutters going to the hoop for easy baskets. He doesn't set weak side picks that free teammates for wide open shots.

I've seen a ton of players without athletic ability, including scores of Europeans, who can do many of these things without scoring. Hooper without a solid socring average is just a guy out there who isn't hurting you, but providing little else.

So, what's the fascination with the concept that he isn't hurting us when he's on the court, therefore he must be helping us?

I take it back. Obviously there are some people here, you included, who think he's really earning his minutes in games. The other guys may be sucking, but that's no reason to go to option C.

If max played 30 min the would score at least 15 pts if set up properly and what we would get from his scoring I think would make up for his defense which I do not feel it is as bad as you make it out to be

In D2

I'm confused on who you think these "better basketball players" are. From what I've seen from these guys the last three years, there are only about 3-4 guys who should be considered "better basketball players" (high IQ, high skill). Hooper shouldn't be getting bashed on by posters for passing too quick when he is in the game to shoot the 3. If he's not open, he passes the ball. Isn't that what he is supposed to do? He's one of the only one's on the team that actually plays to his strengths and uses his personal skillset the right way.

Because the team is losing, obviously its hard for even the coaching staff to figure that out. Let's look at it this way: Who has a higher ceiling?

Hooper or:

Sanchez
Sampson
Obekpa
Branch
Harrison
Greene
Jordan
Pointer?

I like that Hooper has a good grasp of the game, doesn't get flustered when he's in, etc. But he's really just a role player, someone who can come in and bang open shots. If he does this and this alone, he's golden.

 

[logen]

Whenever Max Hooper is on the floor my eyes automatically gravitate towards him. I'm dying for St. John's to have a legitimate three-point threat so I constantly try to see what he's doing to get open. And for the most part, he's doing nothing. He stands in the same spot on the floor the entire set. If a guy doesn't collapse on him fast enough (which they normally do) he shoots, if not he passes it away immediately.

I know Max isn't the quickest guy and I don't know what his cardio is like, but he needs to be moving around. Other teams know what he is in there for. He's not a hard guy to defend constantly standing still in the same spot.

I actually think the exact opposite. When I see him on the floor, he is the only one running back door and setting screens at the top of the key to get open. Everybody else seems to be standing waiting for something to happen.

Unless Max is scoring consistently, making his shots like a deadeye shooter, there are far better basketball players to distribute minutes to. I am becoming convinced with each passing game where he sees daylight that he will not be a serious contributor to a winning team here. If he was the kind of consistent threat we think he is, why did he only get 3 minutes a game at Harvard?

Really, there are far better "basketball players"? There are better athletes but I wonder if we even have 5 basketball players on this TEAM. We might win a tournament of one on one but basketball is a game of chemistry and cohesion; not individual moves. I have not formed a solid opinion on Hooper but thinking as a coach I can't ignore the fact that in the last two games we have had our three best stretches AS A TEAM when he was on the floor. I have no idea if that is coincedence or meaningful but it is a fact. Me, I would start Hooper over Greene tonight and see what happened. A poster on this or another thread criticized Hooper for either shooting or getting rid of the ball quickly; on a team that by and large refuses to share the ball that is a huge positive. As for defense, in three extended periods of play, he has hurt us far less than our "better basketball players." Again, I don't know if Hooper can play at this level but I do know what happened in the Nova and DePaul games. As for Harvard, what difference does it make and believe me, Tommy Amaker is far from perfect. Just ask just about anyone who played for him at Seton Hall how big his doghouse was.; I have heard personally even the players who GOT a ton of minutes comment as to how spiteful he was if he didn't take to you.

Do you really, really believe that Hooper helps us even when not scoring? He may have played reasonable defense (i.e. not get torched) but he's not a lock down defender. He doesn't play the passing lanes extremely well and anticipate and pick off passes. He doesn't double down low to steal the ball or create havoc when a big guy posts, or someone drives. He's not a lockdown defender. He certainly doesn't rebound well - his one rebound on Saturday literally fell into his hands because no one was around.

On offense, he does have basketball sense, and I've said that, but.. he doesn't penetrate and dish. He isn't a master of the 3 on 2 or 2 on 1 isolations that can occur in a halfcourt game that breakdown a defense. He doesn't attract so much attention that he spots cutters going to the hoop for easy baskets. He doesn't set weak side picks that free teammates for wide open shots.

I've seen a ton of players without athletic ability, including scores of Europeans, who can do many of these things without scoring. Hooper without a solid socring average is just a guy out there who isn't hurting you, but providing little else.

So, what's the fascination with the concept that he isn't hurting us when he's on the court, therefore he must be helping us?

I take it back. Obviously there are some people here, you included, who think he's really earning his minutes in games. The other guys may be sucking, but that's no reason to go to option C.

Well, I could be talking Greek for all you understand. I am NOT saying anything about Hooper except that I don't know; but I do know what the TEAM has done with him on the court so yes, I think it is worth exploring until the question is answered one way or the other. But I do KNOW about the vast majority of the other players on the team because I have seen selfish, uninspired basketball from most of them for 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 years. The exceptions (incompletes in my mind) are Sanchez, who has not made an impact at all to say the least; Jordan, who has played well at times and poorly at others but obviously seems to be settling down and showing his stuff; and GG, who in limited action has impacted one game, DePaul. You see, and I will take heat from this because it sounds a lot more arrogant than I mean it, IMO many of you have no idea about building a basketball TEAM. A good coach puts his best team on the court, which in many, many cases is not his 5 best players. But in this ESPN, AAU generation, where the spectacular is revered over the fundamental, most fans don't get that. You know why Lebron James and Michael Jordan, especially Jordan, are the greatest players in the last 25 years? Not for the crap you see on the Top 10 plays but because they were/are committed to playing defense and rebounding, to playing the team game, to winning. Jordan gave John Paxson and Steve Kerr their careers because he understod the game and was committed to playing to win. I was very careful to phrase ny opinions on Hooper to a very clear I DON'T KNOW but I feel the team results warranted he get on the court. That is my opinion at this point in time, if he gets the playing time the question will be answered. If not, there will remaiin doubts in my mind. But there is no refuting we have played better team ball with him on the court. But you, in your infinite wisdom will tell me what I REALLY think. I made it very clear I thought he should keep playing because I didn't know and wanted to find out, NOT because I thought he he has earned anything. But you have made up your miind about him because he can't do all the things you listed. The funny thing is neither can anyone else on the team that you want to play in place of him. So tell me please who on our team "On offense,".......does "penetrate and dish" consistently? Who is a "master of the 3 on 2 or 2 on 1 isolations that can occur in a halfcourt game that breakdown a defense"? Who attracts "so much attention that he spots cutters going to the hoop for easy baskets"? Who sets "weak side picks that free teammates for wide open shots"? Frankly, that analysis is nonsense because if we have those players I guess I am living in a parallel universe. So following your logic we should forfeit the rest of our schedule because we have NO players worthy of court time. From where I sit, you and many others on this board made up your minds about Hooper and are just hellbent on justifying your opinion. Me, I am just saying he MAY bring some intangibles to this team that are sorely lacking, never mind that he might hit a comfort zone and we can start to see the shooting everyone, even opposing coaches, knows he is capable of. IMO there is absolutely no reason not to find out; I already know we can lose with the players you want to stay on the court.