ADVERTISEMENT

Uninterested

I’m really glad we have Caleb Love but man he just plays when he feels like it. He is FULL of gifted talent but doesn’t have a motor. It seems he has everything but the mental aspect to lock in and play hard all the time. He could be the best player on the court 99% of the time but I just don’t get it. Glad to see Dunn get run but I still don’t know if Hubert knows his bench roles/rotation and we’re in ACC play ..Go Heels

Sugar Bowl and Playoff games

Early in the 2nd, Kansas State leads Bama 10-7. But the Tide now has 1st and Goal at the 2. Bama takes the lead 14-10.

Before Bill Snyder (a protege of Hayden Frye, like the Stoops boys) went to K-St, the Wildcats were problem the worst all time football program in any Major conference. Before Snyder, the KU football program was a terrifying giant compared to K-St. Since Snyder, K-St has been a consistent winner. That in a state that produces maybe a quarter of the football talent that NC produces.

The Right coach at even the most hapless school can more than just win - he also can leave such a legacy that the program remains a winner well into the future.

The current K-St HC is something of an antithesis to Mack. Rather be all about out-recruiting opponents, Chris Klieman focuses on developing talent and making all players master fundamentals. The football culture is one of toughness and fight. They welcome being underdogs and relish proving to the prettier recruits elsewhere that they will outwork them.

UNC football now has, and for sometime past has had, a soft football culture. If Mack Brown had any ability to alter that, surely he could have done it within 4 seasons. If not, then hemal not live long enough to get it done. UNC football needs the Bill Dooley style off football culture that permeates every part of the program, and especially the OL and DL. A coach like Chris Klieman would install it. Mack will keep focusing on his silver tongue to smooth over the failures and weaknesses.

Quick stuff (Pitt game)...

...and too much of that just smelled.

Starting with the blue-on-blue nonsense (that shouldn't ever be allowed), this game picked up a more ominous stench fairly early on, which unfortunately cast a pall over everything else (more on that below). Anyway..

- it was apparent that we had worked on defensive rotation in 20 vs their dribble drives and kick-outs, as well as challenging the 3-ball Pitt relies upon so much.

- it was also apparent the we had worked on reclaiming space in the post by kicking out when needed and being patient before initiating drives off entries.

- on that note, it sure looked like Mando's shoulder was feeling better, as Pitt couldn't do anything with him but foul --- and foul him they did... trouble is, maybe 1/5 of them were actually called.

- we did a nice job of estab;lishing a sub rotation in the first half, which paid off as we closed the half --- but unfortunately we did not do that in the second half, and the fatigue factor hurt us at a key time.

- our biggest self-inflicted issue was slowing down in the second half, thus allowing Pitt to dictate tempo, and part of that was from the aforementioned fatigue

- on that note, Hubert SHOULD have called timeout around the 9:30 mark. I realize he was waiting for the under-8 or a whistle, welp... good luck with the latter with this zebra crew

And herein lies the skunk(s) in the room.

Folks, this was a game that, running its natural course, had the flow of being a competitive but routine win. Particularly with us keeping their 3s under control, we were on the verge of blowing it open early, and more than once, but EVERY time that was about to happen the zebras would make some bad/invented/inexplicable momentum-changing call against us.

Oh, I'm sure some will scoff, but this was something that was so sore-thumb clunky that I noticed it fairly early on in the first half, while we were controlling the game, even remarking out loud, "man, are these guys trying to keep it inside the spread?" I hoped I was only being sarcastic, but even then something smelled. Then, I look up after the first-half under-4 and Pitt has 1 (!) team foul? Somewhere around the 2:30 mark Mando finally goes to the line, after having been fouled pretty obviously on most of his touches.

Look, everyone who follows the ACC knows how Capel and Pitt plays UNC, and we're no strangers to that sort of "physical" play and/or numbnuts officiating enabling it. And Pitt got jump-the-shark physical in the second half to the point where it had to get called more often, but it was the zebras' uncanny timing throughout this game that, well again, just smelled. I'll just leave it by saying that I HOPE that what I saw was just incompetence...

Anyway, as a general lesson from our end, we need to stop playing "not to lose" in second halves. We must stay committed to transition, tempo and aggression. We also need to make sure our guys are fresh enough to exert max effort while they're on the floor...

Stat Review: @Pitt (12/30/22)

STATVALUEPCTLEHISTORICAL COMPARISON
Base Stats
FG%4330
UNC_statBox_30.png

3FG%3238
UNC_statBox_35.png

2FG%5044
UNC_statBox_40.png

FT%8182
UNC_statBox_80.png

fg%4626
UNC_statBox_25.png

3fg%2089
UNC_statBox_85.png

2fg%633
UNC_statBox_0.png

ft%7628
UNC_statBox_25.png

PTS/POSS0.9451
UNC_statBox_50.png

pts/poss1.0014
UNC_statBox_10.png

TOTPOSS15519
UNC_statBox_15.png

POSDIF356
UNC_statBox_55.png

%LOB1466
UNC_statBox_65.png

%lob1112
UNC_statBox_10.png

SmithIdx-0.163322
UNC_statBox_20.png

Interesting Stats
AST/FG0.5642
UNC_statBox_40.png

AST/POSS0.1835
UNC_statBox_35.png

%RMS0.2416
UNC_statBox_15.png

%FROM337.985
UNC_statBox_80.png


STAT = Statistic being reported
VALUE = Value of reported stat from the current game
PCTLE = Percentile When Compared to All UNC Games since 1996
Historical Comparison = Graphic Portrayal of PCTLE. Marks depict 20% quintiles, as well as 50%.

FG% = UNC Total Field Goal Percentage (47.0% avg since 1996)
3FG% = UNC 3-point Field Goal Percentage (35.6%)
2FG% = UNC 2-point Field Goal Percentage (51.4%)
FT% = UNC Free Throw Percentage (70.0%)
fg% = Opponent Total Field Goal Percentage (41.6%)
3fg% = Opponent 3-point Field Goal Percentage (33.8%)
2fg% = Opponent 2-point Field Goal Percentage (45.9%)
ft% = Opponent Free Throw Percentage (68.2%)
PTS/POSS = UNC Points Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.934)
pts/poss = Opponent Points Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.846))
POSS = UNC Total Possessions (Smith Method, 85.6)
POSDIF = UNC Advantage in Total Possessions (Smith Method, 2.03)
%LOB = UNC Percentage Loss of Ball (TO/POSS, 15.9)
%lob = Opponent Percentage Loss of Ball (to/poss, 16.4)

MOV = Margin of Victory (9.43)
%FROM3 = UNC Percentage of FG Attempts Taken From 3 (35.6%)
AST/POSS = UNC Assists Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.20)
AST/FG = UNC Assists Per Field Goal (0.59)
AST/TO = UNC Assists Per Turnover (1.4)
%from3 = Opponent Percentage of Shots Taken From 3 (33.8)
ast/poss = Opponent Assists Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.16)
ast/fg = Opponent Assists Per Field Goal (0.52)
ast/to = Opponent Assists Per Turnover (1.1)
poss = Opponents Total Possessions (Smith Method) (83.6)
TOTPOSS = Total Possessions in the Game(Smith Method, 169.3)
SmithIdx = UNC Total of Pts/Poss minus Offensive Goal (0.95) + Defensive Goal (0.85) minus Opponent Pts/Poss (avg: -0.01)
Discussion
In another damn loss to Pitt, the Heels found themselves in another slow-tempo game where they allowed the opponent to do what they wanted inside on offense. Pitt shot 63% inside the arc, resulting in 1.00 points per possession. The Heels had a good offensive outing with 0.94 points per possession.
  • Like
Reactions: r_u_worthy
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT