Max Hooper

[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.

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.

You should have stuck with I don't know. You took a long time to say a great team is constructed with guys who complement each other. The 70 Knicks started to zoom when they took a better player (Cazzie Russell) out of the starting five, and replaced him with Bill Bradley. Big difference though was that Bradley had professional skills, as did John PAxson and Steve Kerr (both of whom could bang open shots). I'm telling you that my OPINION is I've seen enough to say that Hooper has to make shots to open up the offense and that he hasn't done it. Opposing coaches are likely aware that he made 10 threes in a game in Europe, 5 vs Penn State, and a few vs. Georgetown. That's likely about it, so defenders know to keep an eye on him. So far that's been enough to cause him to misfire - he isn't being shadowed, and guys aren't in his jock - they just jump out to put a little pressure on the shot, and so far, that's enough. You may be right, and honestly I'd love to see him do well, but I just don't think he has what it takes to be more than a valued sub.

 

[austour]

FWIW it may not be enough to justify Hooper but the THREAT that he can make an open 3 pt shot occupies a defender that would otherwise leave Dom alone and fall back to clog the lane when Dom is in the same position. So at times that might be useful.

 

[beast of the east]

FWIW it may not be enough to justify Hooper but the THREAT that he can make an open 3 pt shot occupies a defender that would otherwise leave Dom alone and fall back to clog the lane when Dom is in the same position. So at times that might be useful.

No doubt that outside shooters are important in opening up the paint. I wish we had a sharpshooter who was dangerous whenever he was given even the slightest bit of room. Hooper COULD be that guy, but he's come up short so far. There's only so much a decoy can do to attract ducks if he can't actually fly.

 

[austour]

No he's not that guy yet, but he is tied for 14th in the BE in 3pt %. It's not like he's bad at it.

 

[beast of the east]

No he's not that guy yet, but he is tied for 14th in the BE in 3pt %. It's not like he's bad at it.

There's something a little helter skelter about garbage time, and also mentally you know it has no bearing on the outcome. That's when the Georgetown barrage happened. That little performance opened the door to serious minutes that past two games, and now he has to prove he can make shots that matter consistently and if he's on the floor, in crunch time. For all the accolades heaped on him on these threads, he isn't going to get the other team in foul trouble, so he'd better make a high percentage of those shots and when they count. I hope he does, and if he gets serious run, hope he does tonight.

 

[ras]

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.

the question isn't who has the highest ceiling. The question is who compliments our other players. We need a 3 point shooter. Who is better than Max? Maybe Harrison. That said ,IMO he should get about 10 minutes a game. Unfortunately Max has proved inconsistent. What Lavin should not do is take him out after 1 miss. If Max is hot play him longer and vice a versa. I think Lavin kept him in a little too long against DePaul.

 

[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.

the question isn't who has the highest ceiling. The question is who compliments our other players. We need a 3 point shooter. Who is better than Max? Maybe Harrison. That said ,IMO he should get about 10 minutes a game. Unfortunately Max has proved inconsistent. What Lavin should not do is take him out after 1 miss. If Max is hot play him longer and vice a versa. I think Lavin kept him in a little too long against DePaul.

No comment.

 

[Andrew]

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.

the question isn't who has the highest ceiling. The question is who compliments our other players. We need a 3 point shooter. Who is better than Max? Maybe Harrison. That said ,IMO he should get about 10 minutes a game. Unfortunately Max has proved inconsistent. What Lavin should not do is take him out after 1 miss. If Max is hot play him longer and vice a versa. I think Lavin kept him in a little too long against DePaul.

No comment.

Get over your obsessions against Hooper. If you think the team would have won any of the Big East games they lost if Hooper was still at Harvard, I have a bridge to sell 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.

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.

the question isn't who has the highest ceiling. The question is who compliments our other players. We need a 3 point shooter. Who is better than Max? Maybe Harrison. That said ,IMO he should get about 10 minutes a game. Unfortunately Max has proved inconsistent. What Lavin should not do is take him out after 1 miss. If Max is hot play him longer and vice a versa. I think Lavin kept him in a little too long against DePaul.

No comment.

Get over your obsessions against Hooper. If you think the team would have won any of the Big East games they lost if Hooper was still at Harvard, I have a bridge to sell you.

He covered up with 24 seconds to go like there were two seconds to go. He was completely overwhelmed in the moment. You MUST catch the ball and dribble or pass in that situation. He didn't even have the presence of mind to call a time out. What was in his head was that they'd give a foul and he'd go to the line to extend the lead. Single biggest bonehead play I've seen in years in that situation, maybe ever. We had the ball, the lead, the shot clock was off. All we had to do was protect the ball, run time off the clock, and make our foul shots. We didn't get past step 1, and game was over. That should tell you something right there.

 

[Andrew]

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.

the question isn't who has the highest ceiling. The question is who compliments our other players. We need a 3 point shooter. Who is better than Max? Maybe Harrison. That said ,IMO he should get about 10 minutes a game. Unfortunately Max has proved inconsistent. What Lavin should not do is take him out after 1 miss. If Max is hot play him longer and vice a versa. I think Lavin kept him in a little too long against DePaul.

No comment.

Get over your obsessions against Hooper. If you think the team would have won any of the Big East games they lost if Hooper was still at Harvard, I have a bridge to sell you.

He covered up with 24 seconds to go like there were two seconds to go. He was completely overwhelmed in the moment. You MUST catch the ball and dribble or pass in that situation. He didn't even have the presence of mind to call a time out. What was in his head was that they'd give a foul and he'd go to the line to extend the lead. Single biggest bonehead play I've seen in years in that situation, maybe ever. We had the ball, the lead, the shot clock was off. All we had to do was protect the ball, run time off the clock, and make our foul shots. We didn't get past step 1, and game was over. That should tell you something right there.

And Phil Greene had zero assists in 38 minutes. What's your point?

 

[jetstorm]

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.

the question isn't who has the highest ceiling. The question is who compliments our other players. We need a 3 point shooter. Who is better than Max? Maybe Harrison. That said ,IMO he should get about 10 minutes a game. Unfortunately Max has proved inconsistent. What Lavin should not do is take him out after 1 miss. If Max is hot play him longer and vice a versa. I think Lavin kept him in a little too long against DePaul.

No comment.

Get over your obsessions against Hooper. If you think the team would have won any of the Big East games they lost if Hooper was still at Harvard, I have a bridge to sell you.

Keep telling yourself that!!!!!!

 

[salty dog]

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.

the question isn't who has the highest ceiling. The question is who compliments our other players. We need a 3 point shooter. Who is better than Max? Maybe Harrison. That said ,IMO he should get about 10 minutes a game. Unfortunately Max has proved inconsistent. What Lavin should not do is take him out after 1 miss. If Max is hot play him longer and vice a versa. I think Lavin kept him in a little too long against DePaul.

No comment.

Get over your obsessions against Hooper. If you think the team would have won any of the Big East games they lost if Hooper was still at Harvard, I have a bridge to sell you.

He covered up with 24 seconds to go like there were two seconds to go. He was completely overwhelmed in the moment. You MUST catch the ball and dribble or pass in that situation. He didn't even have the presence of mind to call a time out. What was in his head was that they'd give a foul and he'd go to the line to extend the lead. Single biggest bonehead play I've seen in years in that situation, maybe ever. We had the ball, the lead, the shot clock was off. All we had to do was protect the ball, run time off the clock, and make our foul shots. We didn't get past step 1, and game was over. That should tell you something right there.

Agree Beast. Terrible terrible play. If this were Carolina they would have called a foul and he would have gone to the line, But in NY you don;t get the call on the reaches off the trap. He should have called time out or bounced the ball off a Friar leg. Cost us the game. In a way he has cost 2 games in a row as his missed three lost the DePaul game.

 

[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.

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.

the question isn't who has the highest ceiling. The question is who compliments our other players. We need a 3 point shooter. Who is better than Max? Maybe Harrison. That said ,IMO he should get about 10 minutes a game. Unfortunately Max has proved inconsistent. What Lavin should not do is take him out after 1 miss. If Max is hot play him longer and vice a versa. I think Lavin kept him in a little too long against DePaul.

No comment.

Get over your obsessions against Hooper. If you think the team would have won any of the Big East games they lost if Hooper was still at Harvard, I have a bridge to sell you.

He covered up with 24 seconds to go like there were two seconds to go. He was completely overwhelmed in the moment. You MUST catch the ball and dribble or pass in that situation. He didn't even have the presence of mind to call a time out. What was in his head was that they'd give a foul and he'd go to the line to extend the lead. Single biggest bonehead play I've seen in years in that situation, maybe ever. We had the ball, the lead, the shot clock was off. All we had to do was protect the ball, run time off the clock, and make our foul shots. We didn't get past step 1, and game was over. That should tell you something right there.

Agree Beast. Terrible terrible play. If this were Carolina they would have called a foul and he would have gone to the line, But in NY you don;t get the call on the reaches off the trap. He should have called time out or bounced the ball off a Friar leg. Cost us the game. In a way he has cost 2 games in a row as his missed three lost the DePaul game.

I've been critical of the kid. IMO he's nowhere near a BE level talent. But no one play or player cost us this game or any game.

 

[Andrew]

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.

the question isn't who has the highest ceiling. The question is who compliments our other players. We need a 3 point shooter. Who is better than Max? Maybe Harrison. That said ,IMO he should get about 10 minutes a game. Unfortunately Max has proved inconsistent. What Lavin should not do is take him out after 1 miss. If Max is hot play him longer and vice a versa. I think Lavin kept him in a little too long against DePaul.

No comment.

Get over your obsessions against Hooper. If you think the team would have won any of the Big East games they lost if Hooper was still at Harvard, I have a bridge to sell you.

He covered up with 24 seconds to go like there were two seconds to go. He was completely overwhelmed in the moment. You MUST catch the ball and dribble or pass in that situation. He didn't even have the presence of mind to call a time out. What was in his head was that they'd give a foul and he'd go to the line to extend the lead. Single biggest bonehead play I've seen in years in that situation, maybe ever. We had the ball, the lead, the shot clock was off. All we had to do was protect the ball, run time off the clock, and make our foul shots. We didn't get past step 1, and game was over. That should tell you something right there.

Agree Beast. Terrible terrible play. If this were Carolina they would have called a foul and he would have gone to the line, But in NY you don;t get the call on the reaches off the trap. He should have called time out or bounced the ball off a Friar leg. Cost us the game. In a way he has cost 2 games in a row as his missed three lost the DePaul game.

His missed three cost us the DePaul game but Phil "no assists" Greene's drive did not cost us the Providence game?

 

[redfazed]

I feel sorry for the kid. He gave up a Harvard degree for one from St John's. Supposedly he wants a career in coaching--that is the only conceivable scenario where transferring from Harvard made any sense for him. Hopefully last night's boneheaded move will be forgotten by the time he's looking for a job.

 

[Andrew]

I feel sorry for the kid. He gave up a Harvard degree for one from St John's. Supposedly he wants a career in coaching--that is the only conceivable scenario where transferring from Harvard made any sense for him. Hopefully last night's boneheaded move will be forgotten by the time he's looking for a job.

I am sure he is going to be very successful in life. Plenty of very smart people graduate from St. John's and go on to success. There will be no shortage of opportunities for Max Hooper in life.

 

[gman]

I played in a rec league last night. Clinging to a small lead in the final minute even us amateurs were smart enough to call a time out when our pg got trapped in a double team.

 

[gman]

I feel sorry for the kid. He gave up a Harvard degree for one from St John's. Supposedly he wants a career in coaching--that is the only conceivable scenario where transferring from Harvard made any sense for him. Hopefully last night's boneheaded move will be forgotten by the time he's looking for a job.

I don't think max hooper has anything to worry about with his future.

 

[fuchsia]

Hooper did not cost us the game, nor did Phil Greene, or any other player. Putting Hooper in the position of receiving the inbounds pass, putting Phil Greene in the position of point guard, and any other number of tactical errors that remind me more and more of why I disliked Lavin's UCLA teams cost us this and other games. I always try to separate basketball from character but I am very ticked off that so much effort by our players is going unrewarded because we have a coach who does not protect them from the weaknesses in their respective skill sets and does not utilize their strengths. Rysheed and Jordan on the bench as we had to kill less than a minute off ends my basketball sensibilities.

Think of it as Dominique Wilkins disease. Playing the Celtics year after year in the Eastern Conference playoffs he would tear up the first quarter with 12 points, get another 7 in the second quarter when the Celtics defense applied enough pressure to make him go to his second best shot option, get five points in the third as the pressure increased a bit more, and in the fourth quarter, with the Hawks all standing around on offense and no other scoring options having been explored, Nique would score some against lockdown defense, but never enough, and the Hawks would lose.

 

[ManhattAn1]

His father Chip is absolutely loaded; manages several musical acts and an agency.

Max Hooper has NOTHING to worry about.

Shame for people on here blaming a game on 1 or 2 kids.

Just like the individual (won't mention names) who complained about the kids not shaking hands; they all ran back on to the court last night to shake. If you want to critcize people on here that is fine but at least criticize facts. And if i don't forget these are 18-22 year old kids. Coaching has not been great and not putting them in the best position to win. I like Lavin, I've spent some time with him over the past few years, but he has not done a good with THIS TEAM THIS YEAR. I give him a pass but after this no more execuses. Blame the coaches not the kids. Maybe Jordan should have been in the end to penetrate and get to hoop that is a strength; not Phil's. But phil was put in that position.