Until now, I’ve been the first to defend Ewing and his staff. With a fanbase that is starved for success, the pressure to restore Georgetown to its former glory can lead to irrational overreactions when results don’t go the Hoyas way. That being said, I think it’s finally time to stop giving Ewing the benefit of the doubt.
It’s not the results that changed my mind. Sure, starting 2-6 in conference play is disappointing, but it’s not like we expected smooth sailing. Losing four key rotation players mid-season is guaranteed to have an impact on any program. No, it’s not the losing that bothers me. Rather, it’s the coaching staff’s inability to make changes in response to what is happening on the court. Both in games and in the long term, it seems as though Ewing is committed to playing a singular style of basketball. This team has a few glaring weaknesses, but the staff has shown an utter lack of flexibility to adjust given what’s working and what simply is not.
Guarding the three-point line
All season, the Hoyas’ kryptonite has been the three-point shot. In fact, Georgetown ranks 337th in the nation, and last in the Big East, in terms of three-pointers allowed. Even in the team’s first few games of the season, it was clear that guarding opposing shooters was an issue, yet since then, the problem has only gotten worse. Six of Georgetown’s eight conference opponents to date have made nine or more three pointers against the Hoyas.
Georgetown’s inability, or unwillingness, to cover three-point shooters was never clearer than against Villanova on Jan. 11, when the Wildcats rained down 15 shots from deep.
The clip above basically encapsulates the Hoyas’ defensive strategy thus far this season. With the shot clock running down, Robinson-Earl is backing down Qudus Wahab. Wahab is in good position, but Jahvon Blair nonetheless decides to help down in the post. This opens up Jermaine Samuels for the kick-out and open three. This is not an isolated incident. All year, Georgetown’s defensive objective has seemingly been to protect the paint, even if that means over-helping and allowing open looks from deep.
As Butler’s Kamar Baldwin made clear, Georgetown’s opponents are aware of this issue as well. “They (the Hoyas) were overhelping,” said Baldwin, “so it was easy to find the shooters and just letting them do what they do.”
While this strategy may work against poor three-point shooting teams like St. John’s (one of two Big East teams Georgetown has beaten), it is not a recipe for success against most opponents. This is not the NCAA of Patrick Ewing’s playing days anymore. Each year, teams are placing greater and greater emphasis on three-point shooting. Contesting three-point shots is without question a necessity for defensive success. I don’t want to sound hyperbolic, but Ewing’s defensive mindset may simply be too antiquated for today’s game.
Lack of in-game adjustments
In addition to exposing a flawed defensive scheme, the team’s struggles guarding the three-point line reveal a lack of in-game adjustments on behalf of the coaching staff. Seemingly every game, a role player on the opposing team explodes for a big night. As the second or third option on their team, the defensive gameplan should not be centered around these players, but once they heat up, a change in strategy is necessary.
Exhibit A is Butler’s Sean McDermott, the team’s starting forward and three-point specialist. After he made three first half three-pointers, running McDermott off the three-point line should have been a point of emphasis in the locker room. Instead, the Hoyas let McDermott explode for an even bigger second half, scoring 14 points, including four three-pointers. What’s worse is that three of McDermott’s makes from deep came in a row on three nearly identical plays.
It’s painful to watch that carnage. At any point during that stretch, Pickett (or better yet the entire team in case someone else switched onto McDermott) should have been told to not help off of McDermott. In all three defensive possessions, I would much rather give up a contested shot around the rim than an in-rhythm three-pointer to a player that is hot.
What do McDermott, Penn State’s Myreon Jones, and Villanova’s Saddiq Bey all have in common? They are all role players who have lit up the Hoyas from deep this season. It’s not a coincidence. It’s bad coaching.
Stepping Back
Do not take this to mean that I want Ewing fired. It’s almost a given that Georgetown will roll with him for at least another year or two, and I respect the willingness to persevere through the growing pains. Bringing in a new coach would demand a full rebuild, which neither the University nor the fanbase are willing to take on.
That being said, it can’t be business as usual, either. Something has to change. My preferred option would be to reevaluate the team’s assistant coaches and try to bring in new blood to help revamp the Hoyas’ scheme for next year. Ewing brings value as a head coach, but maybe not as a pure X’s and O’s guy. Rather than criticizing Ewing for his shortcomings, why not surround him with a staff that can make up for his perceived weaknesses?
How did you handle these issues with the team you coach (or previously coached)?
..