We have been searching for another Manek since he left. He was the missing piece to that debacle of HD's second season.
Inside the mess...
- Thread starter gary-7
- Start date
A stretch/versatile 4 is so important in HDs system. First year, when Manek was inserted to the starting lineup, we took off. 2nd year, Nance was such a bust at the 4. 3rd year, Ingram was a stud and we grabbed a #1 seed. This year, Withers and Tyson started off terribly so HD went small ball, the team got in a groove with improved and consistant play from Withers.
I was first thinking that a quote like that could be cherry-picked for clicks, but the full quote makes it sound worse: "The (Michigan) coaching staff really believe in me and know what I can do. I want to play in an offense that best suits me and my abilities, with the correct players around me so we can all win."
Wonder if he teammates this season felt that vibe from him while he was playing and that inturn caused a little chaos within the roster?
Pull-up jumpers are poison for any team unless you have Jordan or Kobe or SSGA on the team. That is the analytics that have made teams like Alabama so successful. Shooting 3s, layups/dunks, FTs are the statistically best chance for any team to be efficient. Obviously you have to take some open midrange 2 point shots. But last thing we'd ever need is for poor shooting EC or even RJ or anyone on Heels team to take MORE midrange (pull-up) jumpers. The points-per-possession and effective FG% clearly advise against it.
I'll counter to this slightly. I think in the NCAA Tournament, it's pretty hard to simply depend on making a lot of 3s and layups. You can in the NBA because in a 7 game series with 90 or whatever possessions, there's more of a chance that the math will work in your favor and if you're the more talented team.
In the NCAA Tournament, it's a bit different. For instance, you're not going to get layups against Duke and you're not going to get shots at the rim against most teams that advance to the second weekend. Then you bring in volatility into the equation. One bad shooting game isn't going to kill you in the NBA playoffs. One bad shooting game (Alabama's vs Duke), can end your season in the NCAA Tournament.
And everyone here knows I'm pro analytics and I think Alabama is playing a smart brand of basketball. But it wouldn't surprise me that in 10 years, if Nate Oats is the guy that can't win the big game. The one game elimination is a different animal. And a really good big guy is much less likely to go 3/17 shooting than a guard is.
So I'm obviously very pro analytics, but there is a risk to that strategy too. To his credit, Nate Oats believes in it but I think being too extreme on either level is risky. The reality against teams like Duke is you're going to need to manufacture some scoring against them. And that probably involves some mid-range makes if you're going to beat them. Hard to beat elite teams if they know going in they simply have to shut down the 3 and not foul. Again, not getting layups against Duke in all likelihood.
This is the best post I've seen on The Raider in a LONG time. And I know you mean it toward more than just basketball in life, which I agree with, too.
This will make me sound 100 years old, so be it (I'm 57).... there is a lot of good that comes from social media including a channel for true free media and freedom of speech, unfiltered, not spun or edited....
but overall especially in regards to how "celebrity" is treated (all the glory, worship, and positive, never any accountability, dealing with challenges or obstacles in life, and growing from them)... make social media a net negative for most celebs and their fans / families who don't know how to handle it responsibly.
I know this isn't some great revelation. Several national sports media have made same points in last few years.
I don't want to send this thread off into Out of The Blue land, but a few other things I've seen from EC's mom on X - it seems clear she's not the brightest bulb on the tree. (Like turning to Joy Reid - if you know who that is - for an objective take on political issues - just as one example).
yah - but anyone at this level has a big ego and is 100% convinced he CAN make the turnaround, given one (or two, three, four) more chances.
In the end, its not Hub's call. Money (wins) talks, BS walks. Its put up or shut up time next year. No longer. No more excuses or future plans to change.
One additional thing: Hub is a hard core introvert. Treats people well, but much prefers to be by himself or just his close family. It's hard for me to think of others who are big time professional coaches who are introverts. I suppose there are a few, but you have to be willing to deal with lots of personalities, and challenge them, and get energy from being around lots of different personalities (including constantly challenging players and assistant coaches to give more, do better)..
..instead of being totally drained by these interactions, and wanting to avoid them as much as possible. Just a bad personality type fit.
for the record I am not laughing ha ha, but laughing/agreeing how funny/sad this would be if it were at any other program but UNC. Donors, alum including players, etc have to be furious, embarrassed.
I know Roy is stubborn to a fault, I wonder what deep down he thinks about all this. If I had to bet, my money is that Roy puts all the blame on what the NIL/portal has done to the game (but that horse left the barn and aint coming back...) - and that Hubs is doing as well as any other coach would do. Which is 100% false but Roy's undying loyalty completely blinds him to reality.
@bleeduncblue - I am sure you know more of the inside story than most anyone here, and I know you can't share a lot of it. It sure would be nice to know what the Powers that be high in the athletics dept are thinking about the next two years for the basketball program.
absolutely literally blinding loyalty to someone who has been a great friend to him for years, and who has been around basketball greats his whole life and was a great player, and great person by all accounts
(but the giant glaring - blind spot to Roy - was the zero HC experience and success. Should' ve been disqualifying from square one as many here have stated).
I've heard frequently that Bubba didn't have a say in the hiring. It's bothered me, the idea that the very person paid to handle that situation was absolved of that responsibility. Does anyone with knowledge (not simply message-board hearsay) know to what extent that is true?
Wonderful post, astute points. You watch way more college basketball than I do. I watched very little this year. My son just graduated from Alabama Law School so I sure wanted Alabama to win against hated Duke. Duke is surely really good, but obviously can be beaten. But nobody remaining can win with their A game against Duke's A game. Duke is pretty loaded with talent, but Florida is probably second regarding talent and depth.
All your points are right on re a one game "series", and better defenses as you advance etc. I do think a team like Alabama was structured to beat Duke, BUT I thought a couple things during the game:
1) Alabama was missing a lot of threes, turning it over a lot (many unforced), and became hesitant to take even open 3s. Which can kill you in a one and done scenario, as you stated.
2) it was alarming to me how Alabama seemed to consciously "pass" on playing any defense whatsoever, beyond say the first pass or screen. You mentioned teams don't generally get shots at the rim (layups or dunks) at week 2, but Duke seemed to get them whenever they wanted because they are patient and run really good if not great offense, screening, passing, with lots of talent in Kneuppel, Flagg, and their big freshman guy I think from Africa, and Proctor is a decent distributor.
I understand that Oates focuses on outscoring the opponent and Alabama was basically a record-setting SEC scoring team this year. I doubt they spend an equal time in practice working on defense vs. offense. But - like you said, your shooting can be off, but (I think the saying is) defense always travels. Defense is much less reliant on being "on" from a touch and hand/eye coordination standpoint; you can always hustle and move your feet and help and grind out an "ugly" win on defensive effort, without relying on if the ball comes off your hand wrong or you leave shots short from being tired.
The other way I think Alabama could have beaten Duke possibly, and maybe is a recipe for say Fla to win is to run with them more and get more points in a primary or secondary break. Florida seems a bit deeper than Duke, with better guards for sure.
Maybe Houston has a chance if they can slow it down and have it be a grind out, "ugly / dirty" game, played in the 60s instead of the 90s.
Who gets credit for their development that year. Certainly not the coach, right. It seems if the player improves it's the player, if they don't it's the coach.
Ryan was super senior, Ingram was freshman of the year in the pac 12 and Bacot took a step backwards.
thinking about this more, yes the quote sounds awful, but I highly doubt this statement was a slight against his now former teammates and (I believe) current friends. Just wanted to clarify my opinion on it and should've taken the time to do so on my original post, out of fairness to EC. Whoever his agent is though needs to work with him on PR speech skills and approach.
And they all improved especially Ingram, total growth year. Bacot was killed on here his first two years, he developed immensely while at UNC.
Again you give credit to the player when they grow, flourish. Manek included, but blame coaching when they don't. They all can play, they are at UNC, you can't play it both ways. The ones mentioned all improved at UNC.
I hear you but Bocot isn't a great example. He really didn't develop skills with this staff. Manek not a great example either, he was already good, didn't really develop at UNC. I do respect and understand your argument tho. However I think there are actually more, legit arguments for lack of player development with this staff. You know, a tough for me is Tyson. Is he really a miss or is he not developing and has zero confidence because of leadership?
Ok, we see that differently. Manek was indeed the best shooting big already, but he also played zero dee and his motor and team play was a problem at Oklahoma. His attitude and effort alone seemed different under Hubert, who he did say was the only reason he came to UNC.
Bacot did not develop a pro game here, but the kid was doubted after his first 2 years almost universally for impact. He may have reached his level, and plateaued, but I think Senior Mando was leaps and bounds improved from early UNC Mando..
"I want to play in an offense that best suits me and my abilities, with the correct players around me so we can all win."
An offense that suits my abilities....
With correct players around me.....
Clearly saying that Hubert failed on those 2 points.
Which, to be fair, is what a lot of folks here have also been saying.
I like the no-nonsense use of the word "correct."
