PDA

View Full Version : Are the Zags better without Josh?



RebornZag
02-23-2007, 03:13 PM
Not as talented for sure, but I think better. Sometimes talent gets in the way of the TEAM. I think they are, and the reason is that I feel the chemistry is better. Good chemistry is what we've lacked all year, and I think it's one of the most important things in developing a winning team. I think Micah Downs will be an adequate replacement for Josh. He passes better, screens better, defends better, and is a team player. Others are now stepping up, who I think would not have unless this had happened (Pendo, Kuso, Downs). I look forward to this week-end, because I think we are going to learn a lot about the new Zags. I think by Tuesday, we'll know the answer to this question.

229SintoZag
02-23-2007, 03:15 PM
The answer to your question is NO.

HTH.

dawgncarolina
02-23-2007, 03:16 PM
The answer to your question is NO.

HTH.
He's right, you know.

Zagster
02-23-2007, 03:25 PM
You really think Micah plays better defense than Josh .... in the low post?

former1dog
02-23-2007, 03:27 PM
:mad:

BobZag
02-23-2007, 03:30 PM
N.O.

GoZags
02-23-2007, 03:33 PM
Nope

RebornZag
02-23-2007, 03:34 PM
Josh was a good shot blocker, but he was not a good one on one defender of low post players. Why do you think we always had to double team down low? If Josh guarded a big man who was good he almost always got into foul trouble. Josh sat out a lot this year because of foul trouble. I believe Kuso will be a better low post defensive player. Of course Downs will NOT guard the low post players. I said he was a better defensive player and he is. Few, early in the season, said that Downs would become some version of Larry G. for the Zags this year. I believe that. Micah has done an excellent job this year on high scoring Wings. If Few had played him more against Santa Clara last time, and let him guard Daugherty rather then Bouldin, I think we would have beat Santa Clara. Daugherty did not score on Downs the whole time Downs guarded him. Unfortunately not enough.

roxdoc
02-23-2007, 03:35 PM
We have all seen the talent in Josh when he has decided to show up. Its difficult to judge the negative effect he has had on the team and how the two balance.

sanfranzagsguy20
02-23-2007, 03:38 PM
hey reborn thoughtful post and i can see where you could get the notion and at least think about this concept...but the fact is i think josh is the best ALL-AROUND big man in the wcc and there is just absolutely no way that a team is better off without that...not saying this is what your doing but...we shouldnt confuse WANTING to be better without josh and actually being better without him...obviously we all want to become a better team without him because we dont have him but the fact is...we are not as good of a team without josh on the floor...but hey you are right...micah has come in and played well (although i dont think he is in there to really replace josh) and hopefully our chemistry has improved throughout this situation

mtzaga
02-23-2007, 03:41 PM
NO.

CDC84
02-23-2007, 03:51 PM
Nope.

Let me put it this way: GU doesn't beat North Carolina, Stanford or Texas without him.

TimZag
02-23-2007, 03:53 PM
Ridiculous question. We've played three games without him and already lost one. We beat a mediocre LMU team and a very sub-par Portland team. Don't forget we lost to a SCU AT HOME!!!

He's our second leading scorer, only solid low post presence, and best shot blocker. We're not close to as good without him.

Reborn, are you basing this question on a convincing win against Portland? Portland is NOT a good team. I'd like to see you say Micah is a better defender than Josh when/if we play a team with a couple legitimate big men. With Kuso in inevitable foul trouble, Mallon a step slow, and Pendo already undersized at the 4, who are we going to rely on for a defensive presence? Micah? He's a very good player, but he's not going to be a beast in the paint like Heytvelt.

RebornZag
02-23-2007, 03:56 PM
I believe we would have lost to memphis by 15 pts if Josh had been playing that day. And I'm saying playing trouble free. For the Zags to play that way against Memphis shows me a lot about this team now. Did you, by the way, see Memphis against Rice? This ZAG team has heart!!!Now that I am aware of what has been going on behind closed doors, I understand the very poor chemistry this team had, and It was obvious to me that they DID NOT have good chemistry on that team. There was so much talent that we should have won many more games....I say especially Duke, Washington State, and Georgia.

But heck. I may be totally wrong. But we will soon see. If we win the next two games I say yes for sure because we never won two 2 conference road games in a row all year. And I think we are about to do that? What was losing to Loyola Marymount about? Hugh? That's a result of bad chemistry.

sanfranzagsguy20
02-23-2007, 03:57 PM
yeah i think we all should have some perspective it WAS portland...but hey would you have rather have us struggled to beat them? although they are a mediocre team we ran out of the gym within the first 10-15 minutes and i think there is something to be said about that no matter who we are playing...it was a convincing win imo...

by the way tim i dont remember beating lmu without josh...i think you are confusing them with st marys on the day after the arrests

BobZag
02-23-2007, 04:14 PM
http://img.superpages.com/articles/doughnut.jpg

lothar98zag
02-23-2007, 04:19 PM
Q: Are the Zags better without Josh?

A: No

Q: Might the Zags end up accomplishing more w/o Josh than if the Cheney incident never happened and he was still on the team?

A: Possibly, but we'll never know...

sonuvazag
02-23-2007, 05:28 PM
Has anyone fired up March Madness 2007 and played a simluated video game with GU vs "GU w/out Josh" yet? Hahaha. Just kidding.

I think we can expect in a hundred simulated games, "GU with Josh" would win 80-90, but I would propose:

With all that's gone down and the extra attention on one player, the other guys might be inspired to prove everyone wrong, us included. This is sometimes the thing that makes it work guys. When you can look back and tell the story of a tournament run against the odds.

Games aren't played on paper.

Nevtelen
02-23-2007, 06:16 PM
Not even a little bit.

But the team is really, really stepping up and playing their hearts out. They'd still be better with Josh, though, and probably be on top of the WCC right now. Josh was really coming on right before everything - 27 22 and 6. Just in case people forgot.

DubZag
02-23-2007, 06:41 PM
Imagine Micah Downs trying to guard Tyler Hansbrough. Josh shut him down, even if it was an off-night for Tyler.

The answer is no, but the question isn't as ridiculous as it sounds.

Fonebone
02-23-2007, 06:47 PM
I have not been reading everything on the board lately, but I am curious where the certainty is coming from that Josh was bad for team chemestry. Not talking about the affect of his arrest - I am talking about before that. I never saw evidence of that nor did I hear about it on the board, nor did I hear it from people who are close to the players. Reborn you seem to be stating it as a fact. Even as an opinion I guess I would have to say what evidence do you have - like you say - that stuff is primarily behind closed doors.

The team really did have fun during and after the Portland game, but hey, it was senior night and the last game in the kennel and they had just blown Portland away. I don't see that as evidence that the Chemestry is better. When a group has to overcome a difficult situation, and the team did the last couple of games, you would expect it to pull the guys together, but that doesn't mean that prior to the "incident" that Josh was a problem.

youreachiteach
02-23-2007, 06:59 PM
The answer is no. Even though Josh likes to hang on the perimeter a bit too much, and his coach draws last sec plays for him to shoot a 3 of a ball screen, he's still GUs best nba prospect.

They mite have looked good vs Portland, but they're not better without him. He's a good team player as well, so they'll sure miss him.

sonuvazag
02-23-2007, 07:02 PM
I have not been reading everything on the board lately, but I am curious where the certainty is coming from that Josh was bad for team chemestry.

I actually think the thread here is a resounding denial of that "Josh was bad for the team" theory. In the straw poll, it's 18-2 that the team is better with Josh. The theory, I believe, is that a future NBA prospect and an overlooked senior leader (Heytvelt v. Raivio) might be a natural rivalry and conflict of interest.

One thing I noticed, as others, is that Josh was hot and cold and seemed to be locked-in at times and missing at others. Now, I actually thought this was a good thing. He was relaxed. Never forced his opportunities. Always seemed to let things happen and it was DRAV's team to lead.

Anyone recall LMU making a run w/out Hank Gathers?

Fonebone
02-23-2007, 07:13 PM
Sunuvazag,

My question wasn't really if people thougth the team was better, what I was asking, specifically of Reborn, was what was the basis the comment that Josh was bad for chemestry.

sonuvazag
02-23-2007, 07:22 PM
Fonebone,

You bring up a good point. Would we be questioning his affect on chemistry w/out the incident? My answer is no. I noticed some kinks in the team chemistry overall and may have thought Josh could be more intense, but I absolutely expected this team would be primed by now when Josh was w/the team and I never would have blamed him for chemistry problems.

Sometimes, stirring the ### is what creates chemistry. Kick a pledge out of the fraternity and everyone works harder to make it to active brotherhood. I think this is the root of our improved chemistry.

Bulldog
02-23-2007, 08:08 PM
Josh is gone at the minimum for this year. Lets move on.

RebornZag
02-23-2007, 08:09 PM
but on the idea of the hole in the doughnut I have to. To say this team has a whole in the middle is an insult to the two guys I've called gladiators all year, Pendo and Kuso. In the early going, when we were playing good, Pendo and Kuso were the gladiators. Then things really started changing: Kuso and Pendo not playing quite so much. Coach playing Josh and Mallon. Coaches choice. But as fate may have it, we are now back to the two gladiators...and please!!! There is no hole in the middle. WE may face a few guys bigger taller then Dorsey, but I doubt anyone tougher or who can jump higher. Also add that other 6'9" leaper Dozier, and you have a pretty tough frontcourt. You may not have seen it but I did. Pendo and Kuso against those guys. I even saw Pendo guarding Dorsey. I saw NO HOLE....And when Douglas Roberts came driving down the lane for the game winner, Kuso soared like a Phoenix and blocked his shot. That was no hole in the doughnut.

RebornZag
02-23-2007, 08:13 PM
My memory about posts on team chemistry before Cheney was that we were really struggling with it....There were many, many posts about it. It was the missing factor about this team. I blieve it is there now....and it is strong...it is The Spirit of '99............................on to San Francisco!!!! Go Zags!!!

gamagin
02-23-2007, 08:20 PM
Yes.

If this current team were the starters and this season was just beginning, I don't hinkg Josh would be able to break into the lineup.

Not because he lacks talent or ability, but because he lacks 40 minutes of commitment, focus and teamwork like the current players do. He is/was not as hungry.

He would do well to learn from these alleged lesser talented individuals, but I'd take any of them in a real street fight over the annointed one.

JH never showed up for a complete game, beginning to end, imo, and that's a weakness i can't abide, as long as the question was asked and as long as there are teammates who give 40 minutes to every game.

sonuvazag
02-23-2007, 08:21 PM
My memory about posts on team chemistry before Cheney was that we were really struggling with it....There were many, many posts about it. It was the missing factor about this team. I blieve it is there now....and it is strong...it is The Spirit of '99............................on to San Francisco!!!! Go Zags!!!

Let's not worry, then, about it. It's not good to look too long in the rearview mirror when you're trying to gain forward momentum.

And, you're right. Pendo is a savvy post defender and Kuso is an excellent post defender aside from fouling too much. Downs may be able to provide some timely blocks. It's not out of line to think this team will work. I propose if this was our team all along and we didn't know any better, we would be excited about who we got and spending more time looking forward.

In the immortal words of Spongebob Squarepants: "If you believe in yourself, and with a tiny touch of magic..." --Eh-hem-- I have kids.

Zag509
02-23-2007, 08:45 PM
Long term...yes much better to get a drug user off the team.

Short term it hurts.

GoZags22
02-24-2007, 08:17 AM
I think we can expect in a hundred simulated games, "GU with Josh" would win 80-90, but I would propose:

With all that's gone down and the extra attention on one player, the other guys might be inspired to prove everyone wrong, us included. This is sometimes the thing that makes it work guys. When you can look back and tell the story of a tournament run against the odds.

Games aren't played on paper.


Amen.
On paper, Josh's presence makes the Zags appear to be much better. But this has the makings of something that is not all that rare in Sports: a team becoming a better "team" after the loss of a star player. It's difficult to do - it takes a ton of character, grit, and the presence of a huge chip on your shoulder. Zags are born with those traits, and these guys have the ability to overcome and use this as a way to elevate their game.
This might be wishful thinking on my part, and it might be skewed by the fact that our last game was against Portland.

But I challenge anyone who claims they can definitively say that this team can not make itself a better basketball "team" without Heytvelt.
They can.
The question is: Will they?
I'm excited to watch the next 10 days and find out.

Bulldog
02-24-2007, 09:06 AM
It doesn't really matter now.

lothar98zag
02-24-2007, 09:24 AM
Amen.
On paper, Josh's presence makes the Zags appear to be much better. But this has the makings of something that is not all that rare in Sports: a team becoming a better "team" after the loss of a star player. It's difficult to do - it takes a ton of character, grit, and the presence of a huge chip on your shoulder.

Possible Ewing Theory (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1193711)?

RebornZag
02-24-2007, 09:34 AM
The Ewing Theory is one your best finds for me. What a nice preview to a sweet victory today.

jbslicer
02-24-2007, 09:40 AM
NO

sonuvazag
02-24-2007, 09:45 AM
Nice work, Lothar.

Best example: When Tiffani Amber-Thiessen replaced Shannen Doherty, "Beverly Hills 90210" thrived.

Case closed.

BobZag
02-24-2007, 09:45 AM
...operating against a makeshift GU front line that has been gutted by suspensions and injuries.

Josh Heytvelt, a 6-11 sophomore forward and the Bulldogs’ top rebounder and second-leading scorer, remains suspended indefinitely.

“I would assume with us being where we’re at, that they will attack us inside as much as they can with Wiggins,” Few said of the Dons.

http://www.wordlab.com/images/doughnut.jpg

ZagManFan
02-24-2007, 10:17 AM
I would say yes. Josh was a good shot blocker, but when did he block it to a teammate? I would like to see how many of those blocks actually turned into GU points compared to opponents points. Josh would just piss me off watching him stand there while Pendo and others are on the floor scraping for the ball. Played defense when it made him look good IMO, not for the team.

I don't want to come down on Josh, but I would be saying this regardless of the incident. His time off has meant that Micah and Pendo has had to step up. I really like Micah now. He has become more confident and is a team player and Pendo actually has the highest 3pt% on the Zags roster (except Mast who is 1-2). Micah is number 2 and then Ravio. How is it bad to get more playing time for 2 of your better shooters?

Gu will start playing like teams of old. WINNING!

Rubbadub
02-24-2007, 10:33 AM
I suppose we'll see within the next month whether you nut cases are on to something...