The starting lineup baffled me too. A buddy texted me before the game about who we put on Flagg, and I told him it had to be Powell or Withers, then we commenced to starting 4 guards. I just keep scratching my head at a lot of the decisions this staff continues to make, or not make....and I pretty much had most of this written by the under-8 of the 1st half --- and then the 2nd half proved my point.
- By the 3rd possession it was painfully clear that they had scouted and were anticipating all of our predictable horizontal actions. Their guys were simply ignoring anything vertical and opening up to passing lanes.
- And when we got 1/5 and/or 5/1 mismatches on like 8 different occasions before the under-8, instead of letting those guys take advantage, we've got other guys running around in semi-crcles or crossing the ball-handler and getting in the damn way. For pete's sake, opponents can see our "zoom" actions coming down I-40.
- But there's a LARGER question: Why in the hell would you start our smallest iineup against the biggest team in D1 unless you're gonna PRESS? And why use mid-post doubles on Flagg when it just opens up shooters without stressing the ball to any degree?
- Those questions were made even more poignant when, in the second half --- LO AND BEHOLD --- we legitmately went MULTIPLE, mixing Zone and 40, and mostly successfully. Of course we stubbornly waited until precious minutes had ticked off. Still, we beat them by 5 in the 2nd half and believe me, dook was NOT coasting. I'm not into moral victories --- I'm into LEARNING --- and all I can hope is the staff damn well learned something for the rest of the schedule.
- We also eventually played our best offensive ball late when we started using VERTICAL initiations from the key. Some of the actions that got Drake in space for a vertical drive, for example, worked very well.
- But back to the defensive end, look, us trying to be stubbornly in Man vs dook is a loser. For one thing, bless his heart, there is nobody in the dook rotation that RJ can guard --- and hoo-buddy, they exploited that every chance they got.
- Finally, when I wrote that pissed-off abbreviated post after PItt, I neglected to mention the point that this team thus far has had NO IDENTITY. I did notice that @gunslingerdick picked up my slack in the replies and he was spot on. And we've also got Frosh wings making Frosh mistakes on top of our size deficit. My point is, we at least got a glimpse of what this team's identitiy SHOULD be --- be MULTPILE and aggressive from the tip, and on offense, stop with all the called weaves, etc and let play-makers make plays TOWARD the rim. Moreover, make teams guard US in the inevitable mismatches we can create.
- Oh, and one last thing --- once we started showing a defensive identity, ain't it amazing how suddenly the size deficit didn't matter quite as much when we weren't a damn SITTING DUCK anymore, huh? And I'm gonna tell ya, Wash and Lubin started holding their own in the trenches. And I'm also gonna mention that Tyson acquitted himself quite well, and helped mitigate the size thing a bit.
Anyway, there it is. This OUGHTA be a epiphany moment for Hubert. I mean, geez, you gotta know we're starting any game at HIS with a 10-point deficit just from the "treatment" we're gonna get (and did), so why put yourself at a further disadvantage by playing right into their strengths? Fact is, we have personnel who were MADE to be multiple and aggressive --- NOT to be stuck in Man defense. On the other end it's about NOT making ourselves predictable and easy to guard. Stop dicking around horizontally on the perimeter and stress the damn rim. We've got a week to learn. Will we? We'll see...
Quick stuff (dook game)...
- Thread starter gary-7
- Start date
False premise. I do no such thing. If I call any coaches out, that is because they deserve it.
You might want to read what you write. Yeah, Tyler was physical, but not in the way the euphemism is too often thrown around. He didn't grab, hold, knee and undercut as a shortcut for playing actual defense --- but he was forunately physical enough to play thru the myriad opponents who tried that crap on him.
True but what and team taking any thing they can get to have an advantage if they can get away with it isn't necessary wrong. It's the refs job to make the calls and if they arent then IMO it good coaching to be doing it.
But back to my initial question it's your call on the next coach who's phone number you dialing?
I have no surprise that's what you want, which suggests you might've been happier all these years pulling for a darker shade of blue where getting away with stuff and relying on refs has been their M.O. for decades.
IIRC, Dean Smith and Roy Williams somehow managed to be pretty good coaches without resorting to those shortcuts.
Oh, you want an answer? OK, my first move tomorrow as AD would be to go down our bench starting with Hubert and ask which one of you is willing and able to stop this reinventing-the-wheel foolishness and start coaching the Carolina basketball you were taught?
Clearly, if it were up to me BEFORE I made a phone call to a perspective coach I would do my job as the AD. I would explore any negatives that exist and see what level of truths that may exist, of course if those damning items to have legs it would effect my decision. But I don't believe in being guilty by the allegation, I believe in guilty by the evidence. Do you, for example hold Roy guilty of running a program based on his players taking fake classes?
...and welcome back to rewarding the goons.
Anyway, all I can say is that while I'm thankful nobody associated with that program will ever coach here --- I'd prolly gouge my own eyes out rather than watch that fugly thug-ball --- I nonetheless just don't get letting them do their iso back-ins over and over (and over), when a healthy dose of 42 and 32 would've ruined their damned day...
Gary you have called everyone from coaches, players, schools, refs, entire states and even TV commentators dirty or thugs.
Yeah, I'm not sure what thug ball is either. I like a physical team.
Oh dang shelby, you a carpenter cause you hit that nil on the head! LOL Look, I am not looking to get in the middle of a war of words between you and gary. I agree with a lot of gary's views, yet I do agree with a lot of what I see you sharing as well, I like all views of a situation, I take all in to consideration and then frame my own. Gary has said MANY times that he doesn't like what he calls "bully ball". But I actually like more physical play. Me personally, if the refs allow the other team to get away with hard physical play then to me it is stupid not to retire the fire in the same way. It would be like a boxer putting up no defense, just standing there letting his opponent blast him and offer to response or defense, kind of dumb in my opinion. I look around right now and see the 2 conferences that tend to specialize in more physical play, what some call "thug ball" being the SEC and the Big10 and where they are found in the top 25, how many teams they will get in to the NCAAT, as opposed to the ACC. I also look at how successful, for example this season, the ACC has been of late vs the more "thug ball" conferences, how that ACC vs SEC challenge go this season for the ACC? Reality is basketball is a contact sport, if you do not matcvh at least the physicality of the other teams you are gonna get knocked out.
Gary doesn't like a lot of screens, calls it bumper pool ball, these couple examples are not examples of me slamming gary, it is simply we see a different approach. His approach has merit, mine does as well, it is a matter of personal preference what style or approach you prefer as a coach. Some fans LOVE the 5 out approach, love the switch all 5 approach on defense, love having 4 guards in together for most of the game, I hate all 3 of those unless it is switched to in game to give the other team something to have to figure out. I actually admire how Tony Benett coached at UVa but I would HATE for his brand of ball be how we play. It is personal preference, there is no such thing as 1 size fits all. I am not looking to prove anyone right or wrong, just sharing what I believe, others believe differently, cool to live in America where we call all have different opinions and express them.
It pains me greatly but you are right, it is simply where we now are in the sport. You now MUST pay for play else shut the program down, there are no other options if you want to continue the history of winning UNC fans have come to expect.
If you can't match the Jimmys & Joes, out the window your program goes...
I like a physical team as well slinger. I can assure you this, to most every other fan base in the nation outside of UNC, Hansbourgh was considered to be a thug because of his physical play. For me, one of the best moments in sports was Tyler dunking on Kenny George, it was like Tyler climbed a mountain and planted that flag! LOL
I do NOT like to see players get hurt in any sport, kids work to hard to get to where they are to be injured purposely. But I would ask, any UNC fan, when Hansbourgh took that shot to the face against duke, came out face bloodied, is there a Tar Heel alive that would not have loved to see Henderson catch a elbow to the face on duke's next possession?
Last edited:
