The Difference In Coaching Philosophies

[Tarheel75]

After listening to post game comments by Roy and some players after the Syracuse game, it began me thinking about the differences in coaching philosophies of He and coach Smith. There has been a multitude of posts about the way Roy coaches and some believe his style is "outdated, archaic, or stubborn to a fault", and may be the cause for some issues that have plagued this team. Let me say that there is no other coach in the land of College Hoops that I would care to substitute in his place, and I also feel that he should coach UNC basketball until he doesn't want to coach any longer. In my opinion, and mine alone, as I don't intend this post to be the fire starter to roast Him, he has earned his position and it's not debatable when you review his entire body of work for his career. For those who have differing opinions I have this warning and words of caution, be careful what you wish, demand, or ask for, you might just get it, and you won't like it most likely.

Now, as to differences in coaching philosophies. Coach Smith always took more pleasure and satisfaction in not allowing the competition to run their offense by creating so much defensive pressure that the opposition made many more mistakes, had more empty possessions, and just wore down over the course of a game due to our defensive pressure. You knew you had done well, when, after a game, he came in smiling like a mule chewing briars. He actually would get somewhat giddy, if we held our opponents under 40% shooting for the game. If we had won the game, he would congratulate us on the win, and would point out what we should and could have done better. And, he was right, actually, he was always right when it came to basketball theorems. He was simply a genius in breaking down the sport of basketball into finite segments and studied the game endlessly. If we players could have implemented his directions at all times, we would have never lost, but..., we are all too familiar with imperfections of and in humans, so we lost games that easily could have been won, if we had just carried out directions. He never cared to run up scores or score an abundance of points, although he did like offense, he loved defense. He only wanted to make sure we scored 1 more point than them, as he was want to say. While he wanted us to feel the effects of not paying attention to details by losing, he never would let us be consumed by losses. He chaffed and got very defensive when a reporter tried to apply the word system to our program. To him, it was a philosophy or technical precept.
There will never be another like him, and that's kinda good, as it solidifies his place among the Mount Rushmore of coaches, but falls well short of defining what, and who he was off the court. Look..., I loved both of my parents, and am grateful that I had their love & support for their entire lives, however, if I could have picked a father out of this entire world, it would have been Coach Smith. That may raise a few eyebrows, but know this, there are more men than just myself, who will tell you the same.

Now, as for Roy's philosophy:

There have been a number of posters in this community that have been adamant that Roy's coaching philosophy is totally talent dependent. I agree with this, as when you review the success and failure of any team, the more talent you have, the more successful you are, that is obvious, is it not? So, what's the problem or issue(s)? Could it be that the talent we have on this team is not as great as it purported to be, or is it that we are so young and inexperienced, and uncoordinated that they collectively cannot chew gum and walk at the same time? Is it possible that some are ADD or have ADHD? I personally do not subscribe to the lack of talent, we are talented, that we can most likely all agree upon. In speaking just briefly with some former teammates and one very, very close within the program, it's not a problem in talent per se`. It's an issue with having the right talent. I know that this is going to most likely fuel some indignation in some, just remember, not all that I type is a product of my thinking. Every great, or even good team, has to have at it's point a player capable of initiating the offense and set the stage on the court for scoring opportunities. In the 24 games to date our PG's, particularly Caleb, has proven himself incapable of handling this most important position in the offense. Those that have followed Carolina Basketball for a number of years know and understand the importance of the PG spot. Before you disagree with any of the aforementioned concerning Caleb, go listen to the press conference by Roy after the Syracuse game as he made a statement regarding Caleb that I had to rewind and listen to, to make sure I heard him correctly. He said, and I quote "Caleb has not learned to run the offense". Why, after 24 games and approximately 80 practices, has he not learned the offense and how it needs to run? It's not because he is not talented, for he is certainly that. It has to go back to being coachable and basketball IQ, and that apparently is the problem or issue, and it certainly fits within the scope of what I have witnessed throughout this season. You can disagree, and that's ok, just be warned that his play to date will most likely not get to where he is consistently running and directing a productive offense, if he ever does. While his aspirations for the NBA has to be linked to the PG position, he has NO SHOT at making any NBA team with the credentials he currently has as a PG. Then why not RJ at PG? He too, has not learned to run the offense, and his shot decision making and passing is very much lacking and has not proved to be any more adept at running the offense than Caleb. When both play together, I just cringe, waiting for the avalanche of wild shots and poor passing judgment. Both can get better, and be very good players, and if Caleb stays for another season, and improves over the summer, we still need to find a PG with the natural PG mentality. It's as Gary7 has often mentioned, Roy is trying to put a round peg in a square hole with Caleb, and to this one's current thinking, he never will.

Roy learned at the feet of DES, and we certainly see the DES influence in the many ways that Roy coaches. However, Roy is decidedly different in approach to playing basketball.

Ever since he got a DIV 1 head coaching job, he has recruited players who could shoot and rebound. I imagine that he thought he had it with this group, but history says different.

His MO as a coach depends on the ability to make shots, out rebound your opponent, get some stops, create a significant disparity in the number of possessions, and simply outscore you. He has never been a defensive minded coach as was DES, and to be average or a little above average defensively was good enough to win most of the time for him, and there is no shame at all in this approach, as it has won more games and NC's than did DES.

That's the decided difference in their 2 coaching philosophies.

In saying all of this, I do not wish to make anyone believe that we cannot or will not improve in the future, God, at least I hope we will. What this group needed was a summer of PU and S &C and due to the COVID situation, that was not possible. If most of this team stays for another year, and gets those 2 things mentioned, I suspect that some of this that I have typed could take a 180 degree turn, especially when we drop some weight and add some new blood to the lineup.

I remember another "Thought for the day" that coach Smith gave us that states, " Everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but all the happiness and growth occurs while your climbing it".

If that statement is a truism, then I need to find a way to see the happy and growth part.

 

[2DDIMOND]

After listening to post game comments by Roy and some players after the Syracuse game, it began me thinking about the differences in coaching philosophies of He and coach Smith. There has been a multitude of posts about the way Roy coaches and some believe his style is "outdated, archaic, or stubborn to a fault", and may be the cause for some issues that have plagued this team. Let me say that there is no other coach in the land of College Hoops that I would care to substitute in his place, and I also feel that he should coach UNC basketball until he doesn't want to coach any longer. In my opinion, and mine alone, as I don't intend this post to be the fire starter to roast Him, he has earned his position and it's not debatable when you review his entire body of work for his career. For those who have differing opinions I have this warning and words of caution, be careful what you wish, demand, or ask for, you might just get it, and you won't like it most likely.

Now, as to differences in coaching philosophies. Coach Smith always took more pleasure and satisfaction in not allowing the competition to run their offense by creating so much defensive pressure that the opposition made many more mistakes, had more empty possessions, and just wore down over the course of a game due to our defensive pressure. You knew you had done well, when, after a game, he came in smiling like a mule chewing briars. He actually would get somewhat giddy, if we held our opponents under 40% shooting for the game. If we had won the game, he would congratulate us on the win, and would point out what we should and could have done better. And, he was right, actually, he was always right when it came to basketball theorems. He was simply a genius in breaking down the sport of basketball into finite segments and studied the game endlessly. If we players could have implemented his directions at all times, we would have never lost, but..., we are all too familiar with imperfections of and in humans, so we lost games that easily should have been wins, if we had just carried out directions. He never cared to run up scores or score an abundance of points, although he did like offense, he loved defense. He only wanted to make sure we scored 1 more point than them, as he was want to say. While he wanted us to feel the effects of not paying attention to details by losing, he never would let us be consumed by losses. He chaffed and got very defensive when a reporter tried to apply the word system to our program. To him, it was a philosophy or technical precept.
There will never be another like him, and that's kinda good, as it solidifies his place among the Mount Rushmore of coaches, but falls well short of defining what, and who he was off the court. Look..., I loved both of my parents, and am grateful that I had their love & support for their entire lives, however, if I could have picked a father out of this entire world, it would have been Coach Smith. That may raise a few eyebrows, but know this, there are more men than just myself, who will tell you the same.

Now, as for Roy's philosophy:

There have been a number of posters in this community that have been adamant that Roy's coaching philosophy is totally talent dependent. I agree with this, as when you review the success and failure of any team, the more talent you have, the more successful you are, that is obvious, is it not? So, what's the problem or issue(s)? Could it be that the talent we have on this team is not as great as it purported to be, or is it that we are so young and inexperienced, and uncoordinated that they collectively cannot chew gum and walk at the same time? Is it possible that some are ADD or have ADHD? I personally do not subscribe to the lack of talent, we are talented, that we can most likely all agree upon. In speaking just briefly with some former teammates and one very, very close within the program, it's not a problem in talent per se`. It's a issue with having the right talent. I know that this is going to most likely fuel some indignation in some, just remember, not all that I type is a product of my thinking. Every great, or even good team, has to have at it's point a player capable of initiating the offense and set the stage on the court for scoring opportunities. In the 24 games to date our PG's, particularly Caleb, has proven himself incapable of handling this most important position in the offense. Those that have followed Carolina Basketball for a number of years know and understand the importance of the PG spot. Before you disagree with any of the aforementioned concerning Caleb, go listen to the press conference by Roy after the Syracuse game as he made a statement regarding Caleb that I had to rewind and listen to, to make sure I heard him correctly. He said, and I quote "Caleb has not learned to run the offense". Why, after 24 games and approximately 80 practices, has he not learned the offense and how it needs to run? It's not because he is not talented, for he is certainly that. It has to go back to being coachable and basketball IQ, and that apparently is the problem or issue, and it certainly fits within the scope of what I have witnessed throughout this season. You can disagree, and that's ok, just be warned that his play to date will most likely not get to where he is consistently running and directing a productive offense, if he ever does. While his aspirations for the NBA has to be linked to the PG position, he has NO SHOT at making any NBA team with the credentials he currently has as a PG. Then why not RJ at PG? He too, has not learned to run the offense, and his shot decision making and passing is very much lacking and has not proved to be any more adept at running the offense than Caleb. When both play together, I just cringe, waiting for the avalanche of wild shots and poor passing judgment. Both can get better, and be very good players, and if Caleb stays for another season, and improves over the summer, we still need to find a PG with the natural PG mentality. It's as Gary7 has often mentioned, trying to put a round peg in a square hole with Caleb, and to this one's thinking, he never will.

Roy learned at the feet of DES, and we certainly see the DES influence in the many ways that Roy coaches. However, Roy is decidedly different in approach to playing basketball.

Ever since he got a DIV 1 head coaching job, he has recruited players who could shoot and rebound. I imagine that he thought he had it with this group, but history says different.

His MO as a coach depends on the ability to make shots, out rebound your opponent, get some stops, create a significant disparity in the number of possessions, and simply outscore you. He has never been a defensive minded coach as was DES, and to be average or a little above average defensively was good enough to win most of the time for him.

That's the decided difference in their 2 coaching philosophies.

In saying all of this, I do not wish to make anyone believe that we cannot or will not improve in the future, God, at least I hope we will. What this group needed was a summer of PU and S &C and due to the COVID situation, that was not possible. If most of this team stays for another year, and gets those 2 things mentioned, I suspect that some of this that I have typed could take a 180 degree turn, especially when we drop some weight and add some new blood to the lineup.

I remember another "Thought for the day" that coach Smith gave us that states, " Everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but all the happiness and growth occurs while your climbing it".

If that statement is a truism, then I need to find a way to see the happy and growth part.

That was an enjoyable read. For me at least.

 

[gary-7]

After listening to post game comments by Roy and some players after the Syracuse game, it began me thinking about the differences in coaching philosophies of He and coach Smith. There has been a multitude of posts about the way Roy coaches and some believe his style is "outdated, archaic, or stubborn to a fault", and may be the cause for some issues that have plagued this team. Let me say that there is no other coach in the land of College Hoops that I would care to substitute in his place, and I also feel that he should coach UNC basketball until he doesn't want to coach any longer. In my opinion, and mine alone, as I don't intend this post to be the fire starter to roast Him, he has earned his position and it's not debatable when you review his entire body of work for his career. For those who have differing opinions I have this warning and words of caution, be careful what you wish, demand, or ask for, you might just get it, and you won't like it most likely.

Now, as to differences in coaching philosophies. Coach Smith always took more pleasure and satisfaction in not allowing the competition to run their offense by creating so much defensive pressure that the opposition made many more mistakes, had more empty possessions, and just wore down over the course of a game due to our defensive pressure. You knew you had done well, when, after a game, he came in smiling like a mule chewing briars. He actually would get somewhat giddy, if we held our opponents under 40% shooting for the game. If we had won the game, he would congratulate us on the win, and would point out what we should and could have done better. And, he was right, actually, he was always right when it came to basketball theorems. He was simply a genius in breaking down the sport of basketball into finite segments and studied the game endlessly. If we players could have implemented his directions at all times, we would have never lost, but..., we are all too familiar with imperfections of and in humans, so we lost games that easily should have been wins, if we had just carried out directions. He never cared to run up scores or score an abundance of points, although he did like offense, he loved defense. He only wanted to make sure we scored 1 more point than them, as he was want to say. While he wanted us to feel the effects of not paying attention to details by losing, he never would let us be consumed by losses. He chaffed and got very defensive when a reporter tried to apply the word system to our program. To him, it was a philosophy or technical precept.
There will never be another like him, and that's kinda good, as it solidifies his place among the Mount Rushmore of coaches, but falls well short of defining what, and who he was off the court. Look..., I loved both of my parents, and am grateful that I had their love & support for their entire lives, however, if I could have picked a father out of this entire world, it would have been Coach Smith. That may raise a few eyebrows, but know this, there are more men than just myself, who will tell you the same.

Now, as for Roy's philosophy:

There have been a number of posters in this community that have been adamant that Roy's coaching philosophy is totally talent dependent. I agree with this, as when you review the success and failure of any team, the more talent you have, the more successful you are, that is obvious, is it not? So, what's the problem or issue(s)? Could it be that the talent we have on this team is not as great as it purported to be, or is it that we are so young and inexperienced, and uncoordinated that they collectively cannot chew gum and walk at the same time? Is it possible that some are ADD or have ADHD? I personally do not subscribe to the lack of talent, we are talented, that we can most likely all agree upon. In speaking just briefly with some former teammates and one very, very close within the program, it's not a problem in talent per se`. It's a issue with having the right talent. I know that this is going to most likely fuel some indignation in some, just remember, not all that I type is a product of my thinking. Every great, or even good team, has to have at it's point a player capable of initiating the offense and set the stage on the court for scoring opportunities. In the 24 games to date our PG's, particularly Caleb, has proven himself incapable of handling this most important position in the offense. Those that have followed Carolina Basketball for a number of years know and understand the importance of the PG spot. Before you disagree with any of the aforementioned concerning Caleb, go listen to the press conference by Roy after the Syracuse game as he made a statement regarding Caleb that I had to rewind and listen to, to make sure I heard him correctly. He said, and I quote "Caleb has not learned to run the offense". Why, after 24 games and approximately 80 practices, has he not learned the offense and how it needs to run? It's not because he is not talented, for he is certainly that. It has to go back to being coachable and basketball IQ, and that apparently is the problem or issue, and it certainly fits within the scope of what I have witnessed throughout this season. You can disagree, and that's ok, just be warned that his play to date will most likely not get to where he is consistently running and directing a productive offense, if he ever does. While his aspirations for the NBA has to be linked to the PG position, he has NO SHOT at making any NBA team with the credentials he currently has as a PG. Then why not RJ at PG? He too, has not learned to run the offense, and his shot decision making and passing is very much lacking and has not proved to be any more adept at running the offense than Caleb. When both play together, I just cringe, waiting for the avalanche of wild shots and poor passing judgment. Both can get better, and be very good players, and if Caleb stays for another season, and improves over the summer, we still need to find a PG with the natural PG mentality. It's as Gary7 has often mentioned, trying to put a round peg in a square hole with Caleb, and to this one's thinking, he never will.

Roy learned at the feet of DES, and we certainly see the DES influence in the many ways that Roy coaches. However, Roy is decidedly different in approach to playing basketball.

Ever since he got a DIV 1 head coaching job, he has recruited players who could shoot and rebound. I imagine that he thought he had it with this group, but history says different.

His MO as a coach depends on the ability to make shots, out rebound your opponent, get some stops, create a significant disparity in the number of possessions, and simply outscore you. He has never been a defensive minded coach as was DES, and to be average or a little above average defensively was good enough to win most of the time for him.

That's the decided difference in their 2 coaching philosophies.

In saying all of this, I do not wish to make anyone believe that we cannot or will not improve in the future, God, at least I hope we will. What this group needed was a summer of PU and S &C and due to the COVID situation, that was not possible. If most of this team stays for another year, and gets those 2 things mentioned, I suspect that some of this that I have typed could take a 180 degree turn, especially when we drop some weight and add some new blood to the lineup.

I remember another "Thought for the day" that coach Smith gave us that states, " Everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but all the happiness and growth occurs while your climbing it".

If that statement is a truism, then I need to find a way to see the happy and growth part.

Some informative perspectives as always, 75. I'll only just quibble as to a couple of specific interpretations that you alluded to:

Your description of Dean's approach was beautiful, but as for Roy, I wouldn't say he's not defensive-minded as much as he's defensive-stubborn, i.e., he wants/expects his teams to be able to defend at a high level relying mostly on perfecting 22 --- his preferred defense. Trouble is, 22 is really HARD to play well possession after possession, and the teams he's had here who could do it were VERY experienced (the last being 2017). Hell, the one guy on this team who does it right almost all the time is indeed a senior, but he doesn't even start.

But yeah, not being multiple enough is a very fair critique of Roy's approach. And what's maddening is that our most effective performances have tended to be in the games in which we WERE mixing in more 30 and 40 pressures.

The other quibble is about Caleb. As you know, I'm very hard on PGs in our system, and it's the toughest position to learn. Truth be known, we haven't had anyone play it properly since JB left. Jalek left us in the lurch, and folks can get upset if they want, but while Coby scored enough to get to the league, he wasn't here long enough to learn the actual position. Cole came closer to getting it, but OAD struck again before he could perfect Carolina principles. In fairness, Caleb has shown signs of getting it, but again, he's yet another frosh, and one who also didn't grow up playing the position.

As for Syracuse, the PG's role in Zone Offense is not play-maker but floor general --- making sure the we transition to it smoothly out of the Secondary, balancing the floor, triggering ball-reversals, and popping the timely shot. No doubt, neither Caleb nor RJ accomplished that.

 

[FlaTarHeel]

After listening to post game comments by Roy and some players after the Syracuse game, it began me thinking about the differences in coaching philosophies of He and coach Smith. There has been a multitude of posts about the way Roy coaches and some believe his style is "outdated, archaic, or stubborn to a fault", and may be the cause for some issues that have plagued this team. Let me say that there is no other coach in the land of College Hoops that I would care to substitute in his place, and I also feel that he should coach UNC basketball until he doesn't want to coach any longer. In my opinion, and mine alone, as I don't intend this post to be the fire starter to roast Him, he has earned his position and it's not debatable when you review his entire body of work for his career. For those who have differing opinions I have this warning and words of caution, be careful what you wish, demand, or ask for, you might just get it, and you won't like it most likely.

If I could like this post a 10,000 times I would.
And I will add this, he's still the BEST coach in America.
End of discussion!👈

 

[Tarheel75]

Some informative perspectives as always, 75. I'll only just quibble as to a couple of specific interpretations that you alluded to:

Your description of Dean's approach was beautiful, but as for Roy, I wouldn't say he's not defensive-minded as much as he's defensive-stubborn, i.e., he wants/expects his teams to be able to defend at a high level relying mostly on perfecting 22 --- his preferred defense. Trouble is, 22 is really HARD to play well possession after possession, and the teams he's had here who could do it were VERY experienced (the last being 2017). Hell, the one guy on this team who does it right almost all the time is indeed a senior, but he doesn't even start.

But yeah, not being multiple enough is a very fair critique of Roy's approach. And what's maddening is that our most effective performances have tended to be in the games in which we WERE mixing in more 30 and 40 pressures.

The other quibble is about Caleb. As you know, I'm very hard on PGs in our system, and it's the toughest position to learn. Truth be known, we haven't had anyone play it properly since JB left. Jalek left us in the lurch, and folks can get upset if they want, but while Coby scored enough to get to the league, he wasn't here long enough to learn the actual position. Cole came closer to getting it, but OAD struck again before he could perfect Carolina principles. In fairness, Caleb has shown signs of getting it, but again, he's yet another frosh, and one who also didn't grow up playing the position.

As for Syracuse, the PG's role in Zone Offense is not play-maker but floor general --- making sure the we transition to it smoothly out of the Secondary, balancing the floor, triggering ball-reversals, and popping the timely shot. No doubt, neither Caleb nor RJ accomplished that.

I see what you are saying, my response to that, setting aside the technical aspects you mention, is that Roy is more offensive minded than defensive minded...., agree?

As for Caleb..., not all are my criticisms, those are as much or more of the ones I had the discussions with.
Personally, I hope he eventually does get it at the PG spot, but given his play to date, I have to agree with my peers. If he stays, he can prove everyone wrong...correct?

 

[CrazyHeel]

I'd take Roy over Dean everyday and twice on Sunday.

 

[ohio tarheels]

For those who have differing opinions I have this warning and words of caution, be careful what you wish, demand, or ask for, you might just get it, and you won't like it most likely.

As a coach of mine always said growing up “The grass isn’t always greener on the other side of the fence”!!!!

 

[gary-7]

I see what you are saying, my response to that, setting aside the technical aspects you mention, is that Roy is more offensive minded than defensive minded...., agree?

As for Caleb..., not my criticisms those are as much or more of the ones I had the discussions with.
Personally, I hope he eventually does get it at the PG spot, but given his play to date, I have to agree with my peers. If he stays, he can prove everyone wrong...correct?

Oh yes, i agree that Roy is more tempo/offensive in his mindset than defensive these days.

It's interesting that when he got here he had to put that bunch thru some defensive boot-camp stuff to break bad habits, even taking the rims off in practice, but his emphasis seems to have morphed some. Trouble is (as you well know), our offensive efficiency depends on our ability to score in transition, and ya can't do that unless you play good defense.

As for Caleb, it's up to him to learn to balance being a Lead Guard with knowing when to supervise the show. As you mentioned, there's no overstating the absence of a normal Chapel Hill summer to get your feet wet. Lessee if he gets a head start on that in the next couple weeks.

 

[Tarheel75]

Oh yes, i agree that Roy is more tempo/offensive in his mindset than defensive these days.

It's interesting that when he got here he had to put that bunch thru some defensive boot-camp stuff to break bad habits, even taking the rims off in practice, but his emphasis seems to have morphed some. Trouble is (as you well know), our offensive efficiency depends on our ability to score in transition, and ya can't do that unless you play good defense.

As for Caleb, it's up to him to learn to balance being a Lead Guard with knowing when to supervise the show. As you mentioned, there's no overstating the absence of a normal Chapel Hill summer to get your feet wet. Lessee if he gets a head start on that in the next couple weeks.

Wasn't trying to sound as though Roy's teams disregarded defense, just average to above average was enough if the offense was clicking with shots falling, and OR & DR were ahead of your competition. More possessions more opportunities for scoring, with some 24 a little 34 and a touch of 44 defenses mixed in when playing standard defense. And yes, you are spot on about his arrival and what he had to do to round those guys into a cohesive unit. As for Caleb, I too hope he will eventually make his way clear, if he stays. The ones I spoke with have their doubts about his play, although I try to be positive where it's warranted, I'm on the fence personally.

Note: the nomenclature used for the defenses mentioned may have changed since my days, but these were the staple numbers used to call out a particular defense that he (DES) wanted to employ at any given time in a game. The 54 & 51 defenses were zone defensive schemes and we ran several types of zone under DES and changed it's look when signaled by the coaching staff. The signals would change from game to game to keep the competition from recognizing which of the morphing zone defenses we played. The 22-32-42-52 were employed as fast break defenses, while 21 was a sagging man to man defense. As noted, I have not kept up completely with Roy's numbering system over the years, but do remember what the calls were when I played. I am able to identify most defenses we use, it's just that I'm not exactly sure of what the number call outs are these days, and there are some subtle differences from DES to Roy's use of defenses.

At first glance, it would appear to many that trying to remember and run the correct defense were tough challenges, and they were for some. I will try and explain.

In actuality, DES employed only 4 defenses in our entire defensive package that would morph into specialty defenses as the game situation would dictate .
The first digit was used to call the defense to be used and the second digit always indicated where on the court you picked up the opposing offense. The second digit (4) was used to indicate extreme pressure to prevent an inbounds pass. If the second digit was (3) this meant to pick up the opposing offense at 3/4 court. If the second digit was (2) you were to pick up half court. The use of (1) was a KEY as to how you were to apply a given defense once the opposition has set up in the front court. To illustrate: if 23 were called, the defense would initiate our straight man to man pressure indicated by (2) and this would take place at 3/4 court as indicated by digit (3). We would remain in this defense until the the opposition either lost the ball, scored or the game clock stopped.

As I recall the 20 series of defense was straight man to man, the 30's were run and jump with rotating man to man and zone press principles used. The 40's series of defense was termed "the scramble" used to double team an opponent and create TO's by mishandling the ball or losing possession of it due to the pressure and having no outlets. The 50 series of defenses employed various zones. The 1-3-1, 2-2-1, & the 1-2-2. We did not play zone a lot, but we did practice it on a regular basis.

Anyhoo, it is fairly easy now ( I hope) to see how a defense can be ineffective, if 1 or more players are in a different defense than the one called out. It has happened more than most realize and is a primary factor at times why our defense looks so bad or, lets just say ineffective.

 

[Lewis&Miller]

Enjoyed your assessment of the pg position. Caleb did not come to UNC as a true point guard but has all the physical attributes to play that position professionally. He will play for money somewhere. His ongoing failure is in decision making in general. Im not sure that he is not coachable or has a low basketball IQ(his background suggests neither). Past freshmen point guard play at Carolina shows he is not the exception to the rule(just the rule). The staff has at a minimum, some responsibility.

Im shocked to hear Roy admit(the consensus obvious) Caleb has not "learned to run the offense". As a player on the team that has many an implication.

Caleb played a tremendous game at dook. Take away the unusual fact that he hit his shots, he understood the offense that nite. We won with pg play and inside power. Caleb dominated his pg matchup that game. He dominated so much that Rat now has a much tougher, experienced matchup for him in Goldwire on Saturday(maybe Carolina will be the beneficiary of Rat throwing in the towel on making the tourney and playing Roach for the future, not likely though). Im hoping Caleb again channels his determination to prove Rat wrong in not offering him a scholarship.

 

[Bubspub88]

Nice write-up, 75. I did not play in college at UNC but hade several friends who did, including some guys who walked on from JV. Their opinion of Coach Smith tailors yours. I wish Roy could stop signing the OAD pg's and focus on those 4*'s guys likely to remain 3 or 4 years but that's not reality anymore. You almost have to have a guy like Bobby Frasor or Quentin Thomas who can run point when necessary but is willing to accept that he goes to the bench when the stud recruit learns the offense. I wonder if Roy saw enough of Coby in Caleb that he though Love would be adequate at point without having a true pg history.

I agree that there is no one I want coaching at UNC instead of Roy. With him there is absolutely NO question about his loyalty or love for the program. It doesn't take a basketball genius to see that this team is not coachable - they are making same mistakes now they did in January. Do I wish he would do some things differently, absolutely, but if Caleb has not learned the offense yet then what makes anyone think he would have learned it better if Roy had been instructing them to stop switching on D, close out faster on guys shooting from deep or any of the other specifics people complain about.

EVERY coach in America is talent dependent. How many coaches at a smaller profile school were dominating their competition only to move up the next level and be exposed? It is ironic that Roy's offensive style of play has not produced guys who have excelled at the next level nearly as much as Coach Smith's defensive focused mindset. There was a stretch in the 90's when dook was beating UNC more often than not, and Carolina was having guys go on to NBA success while dook had guys who had were nba journeymen but were exceptional college players. In college team chemistry is critical, and it is imperative that a coach recruits guys who can play together. Roy's championship teams were intimidating on offense, but could also play lockdown defense in crunch time. Much of that is attributable to the fact they were older, more experienced and had learned to play TOGETHER.

 

[Tarheel75]

Enjoyed your assessment of the pg position. Caleb did not come to UNC as a true point guard but has all the physical attributes to play that position professionally. He will play for money somewhere. His ongoing failure is in decision making in general. Im not sure that he is not coachable or has a low basketball IQ(his background suggests neither). Past freshmen point guard play at Carolina shows he is not the exception to the rule(just the rule). The staff has at a minimum, some responsibility.

Im shocked to hear Roy admit(the consensus obvious) Caleb has not "learned to run the offense". As a player on the team that has many an implication.

Caleb played a tremendous game at dook. Take away the unusual fact that he hit his shots, he understood the offense that nite. We won with pg play and inside power. Caleb dominated his pg matchup that game. He dominated so much that Rat now has a much tougher, experienced matchup for him in Goldwire on Saturday(maybe Carolina will be the beneficiary of Rat throwing in the towel on making the tourney and playing Roach for the future, not likely though). Im hoping Caleb again channels his determination to prove Rat wrong in not offering him a scholarship.

I in no way wanted to denigrate Caleb as a player, I also was shocked that Roy would publicly state what he did, and what that speaks to should be telling. Now, what that tells you, me, or others may differ.

 

[King Coach]

I can agree with most of the posters but would add that......Roy need shooters......does not benefit a team to out-rebound a team by 20 but miss chippies and open 3’s. We do everything decent enough to win but shoot the 3-ball and protect the ball. And I must say our senior leaders are not the senior players we are use to...see Berry, Paige, TH, Brice etc.

Yes Roy style is different than Dean’s as Dean was a legendary X’s and O’s Coach. To beat a DES team you had to bring your A game. Dean could also win with less talent.

Roy needs certain talent at each position to win at a high level.....nothing wrong with that..... just got to go out there and get them....And overall he has done just that.....3 national titles.

 

[dadika13]

In saying all of this, I do not wish to make anyone believe that we cannot or will not improve in the future, God, at least I hope we will. What this group needed was a summer of PU and S &C and due to the COVID situation, that was not possible. If most of this team stays for another year, and gets those 2 things mentioned, I suspect that some of this that I have typed could take a 180 degree turn, especially when we drop some weight and add some new blood to the lineup.

This is where I'm at with this team. Are we really all that surprised that this team makes really dumb mistakes and struggles to shoot when 6 of our top 10 players are freshman who didn't get anything resembling a normal offseason? We're the 325th most experienced team in the country (out of 340).

The top 3 classes in the country last year were us, Duke, UK in some order. Are we really surprised that these teams are struggling because they are reliant on freshman who didn't have this summer to prepare?

I think if we only lose Sharpe to the NBA this team is going to be very very good next season. We just need patience, which most of us (me included) don't have when we are used to season after season of great play.

We will be fine.

 

[Tarheel75]

This is where I'm at with this team. Are we really all that surprised that this team makes really dumb mistakes and struggles to shoot when 6 of our top 10 players are freshman who didn't get anything resembling a normal offseason? We're the 325th most experienced team in the country (out of 340).

The top 3 classes in the country last year were us, Duke, UK in some order. Are we really surprised that these teams are struggling because they are reliant on freshman who didn't have this summer to prepare?

I think if we only lose Sharpe to the NBA this team is going to be very very good next season. We just need patience, which most of us (me included) don't have when we are used to season after season of great play.

We will be fine.

I have seen and heard announcers say 326th in experience, but regardless of that, your points are well taken, and I believe that the youth mantra has been the subject of many a post in this community, and it's also valid, to a point. It can be, and most likely is, that our group will never reach the tipping point of playing in unison and drastically improve shooting & FT percentages, however, cutting down TO's may be the biggest hill that this group has to climb. It just ruins opportunities to consistently improve play and win totals, in this season of what I refer to as despair.

 

[gary-7]

Wasn't trying to sound as though Roy's teams disregarded defense, just average to above average was enough if the offense was clicking with shots falling, and OR & DR were ahead of your competition. More possessions more opportunities for scoring, with some 24 a little 34 and a touch of 44 defenses mixed in when playing standard defense. And yes, you are spot on about his arrival and what he had to do to round those guys into a cohesive unit. As for Caleb, I too hope he will eventually make his way clear, if he stays. The ones I spoke with have their doubts about his play, although I try to be positive where it's warranted, I'm on the fence personally.

Note: the nomenclature used for the defenses mentioned may have changed since my days, but these were the staple numbers used to call out a particular defense that he (DES) wanted to employ at any given time in a game. The 54 & 51 defenses were zone defensive schemes and we ran several types of zone under DES and changed it's look when signaled by the coaching staff. The signals would change from game to game to keep the competition from recognizing which of the morphing zone defenses we played. The 22-32-42-52 were employed as fast break defenses, while 21 was a sagging man to man defense. As noted, I have not kept up completely with Roy's numbering system over the years, but do remember what the calls were when I played. I am able to identify most defenses we use, it's just that I'm not exactly sure of what the number call outs are these days, and there are some subtle differences from DES to Roy's use of defenses.

At first glance, it would appear to many that trying to remember and run the correct defense were tough challenges, and they were for some. I will try and explain.

In actuality, DES employed only 4 defenses in our entire defensive package that would morph into specialty defenses as the game situation would dictate .
The first digit was used to call the defense to be used and the second digit always indicated where on the court you picked up the opposing offense. The second digit (4) was used to indicate extreme pressure to prevent an inbounds pass. If the second digit was (3) this meant to pick up the opposing offense at 3/4 court. If the second digit was (2) you were to pick up half court. The use of (1) was a KEY as to how you were to apply a given defense once the opposition has set up in the front court. To illustrate: if 23 were called, the defense would initiate our straight man to man pressure indicated by (2) and this would take place at 3/4 court as indicated by digit (3). We would remain in this defense until the the opposition either lost the ball, scored or the game clock stopped.

As I recall the 20 series of defense was straight man to man, the 30's were run and jump with rotating man to man and zone press principles used. The 40's series of defense was termed "the scramble" used to double team an opponent and create TO's by mishandling the ball or losing possession of it due to the pressure and having no outlets. The 50 series of defenses employed various zones. The 1-3-1, 2-2-1, & the 1-2-2. We did not play zone a lot, but we did practice it on a regular basis.

Anyhoo, it is fairly easy now ( I hope) to see how a defense can be ineffective, if 1 or more players are in a different defense than the one called out. It has happened more than most realize and is a primary factor at times why our defense looks so bad or, lets just say ineffective.

Yeah, I've made several posts over the years answering requests to explain the numbers system and now that you're mentioning it, what is interesting (and to me unfortunate) is that we've gone further and further away from Zones. As you said, Dean practiced them constantly and could pull one outta his bag-o'-tricks at any time that he hadn't used in ages, and the opponent hadn't prepared for. And I've never understood why Roy has eschewed Dean's Point Zone the past few years in favor of a straight 2-3 (which we suck at) when he did go Zone.

 

[CURRY2WOODYR80]

After listening to post game comments by Roy and some players after the Syracuse game, it began me thinking about the differences in coaching philosophies of He and coach Smith. There has been a multitude of posts about the way Roy coaches and some believe his style is "outdated, archaic, or stubborn to a fault", and may be the cause for some issues that have plagued this team. Let me say that there is no other coach in the land of College Hoops that I would care to substitute in his place, and I also feel that he should coach UNC basketball until he doesn't want to coach any longer. In my opinion, and mine alone, as I don't intend this post to be the fire starter to roast Him, he has earned his position and it's not debatable when you review his entire body of work for his career. For those who have differing opinions I have this warning and words of caution, be careful what you wish, demand, or ask for, you might just get it, and you won't like it most likely.

Now, as to differences in coaching philosophies. Coach Smith always took more pleasure and satisfaction in not allowing the competition to run their offense by creating so much defensive pressure that the opposition made many more mistakes, had more empty possessions, and just wore down over the course of a game due to our defensive pressure. You knew you had done well, when, after a game, he came in smiling like a mule chewing briars. He actually would get somewhat giddy, if we held our opponents under 40% shooting for the game. If we had won the game, he would congratulate us on the win, and would point out what we should and could have done better. And, he was right, actually, he was always right when it came to basketball theorems. He was simply a genius in breaking down the sport of basketball into finite segments and studied the game endlessly. If we players could have implemented his directions at all times, we would have never lost, but..., we are all too familiar with imperfections of and in humans, so we lost games that easily could have been won, if we had just carried out directions. He never cared to run up scores or score an abundance of points, although he did like offense, he loved defense. He only wanted to make sure we scored 1 more point than them, as he was want to say. While he wanted us to feel the effects of not paying attention to details by losing, he never would let us be consumed by losses. He chaffed and got very defensive when a reporter tried to apply the word system to our program. To him, it was a philosophy or technical precept.
There will never be another like him, and that's kinda good, as it solidifies his place among the Mount Rushmore of coaches, but falls well short of defining what, and who he was off the court. Look..., I loved both of my parents, and am grateful that I had their love & support for their entire lives, however, if I could have picked a father out of this entire world, it would have been Coach Smith. That may raise a few eyebrows, but know this, there are more men than just myself, who will tell you the same.

Now, as for Roy's philosophy:

There have been a number of posters in this community that have been adamant that Roy's coaching philosophy is totally talent dependent. I agree with this, as when you review the success and failure of any team, the more talent you have, the more successful you are, that is obvious, is it not? So, what's the problem or issue(s)? Could it be that the talent we have on this team is not as great as it purported to be, or is it that we are so young and inexperienced, and uncoordinated that they collectively cannot chew gum and walk at the same time? Is it possible that some are ADD or have ADHD? I personally do not subscribe to the lack of talent, we are talented, that we can most likely all agree upon. In speaking just briefly with some former teammates and one very, very close within the program, it's not a problem in talent per se`. It's an issue with having the right talent. I know that this is going to most likely fuel some indignation in some, just remember, not all that I type is a product of my thinking. Every great, or even good team, has to have at it's point a player capable of initiating the offense and set the stage on the court for scoring opportunities. In the 24 games to date our PG's, particularly Caleb, has proven himself incapable of handling this most important position in the offense. Those that have followed Carolina Basketball for a number of years know and understand the importance of the PG spot. Before you disagree with any of the aforementioned concerning Caleb, go listen to the press conference by Roy after the Syracuse game as he made a statement regarding Caleb that I had to rewind and listen to, to make sure I heard him correctly. He said, and I quote "Caleb has not learned to run the offense". Why, after 24 games and approximately 80 practices, has he not learned the offense and how it needs to run? It's not because he is not talented, for he is certainly that. It has to go back to being coachable and basketball IQ, and that apparently is the problem or issue, and it certainly fits within the scope of what I have witnessed throughout this season. You can disagree, and that's ok, just be warned that his play to date will most likely not get to where he is consistently running and directing a productive offense, if he ever does. While his aspirations for the NBA has to be linked to the PG position, he has NO SHOT at making any NBA team with the credentials he currently has as a PG. Then why not RJ at PG? He too, has not learned to run the offense, and his shot decision making and passing is very much lacking and has not proved to be any more adept at running the offense than Caleb. When both play together, I just cringe, waiting for the avalanche of wild shots and poor passing judgment. Both can get better, and be very good players, and if Caleb stays for another season, and improves over the summer, we still need to find a PG with the natural PG mentality. It's as Gary7 has often mentioned, trying to put a round peg in a square hole with Caleb, and to this one's thinking, he never will.

Roy learned at the feet of DES, and we certainly see the DES influence in the many ways that Roy coaches. However, Roy is decidedly different in approach to playing basketball.

Ever since he got a DIV 1 head coaching job, he has recruited players who could shoot and rebound. I imagine that he thought he had it with this group, but history says different.

His MO as a coach depends on the ability to make shots, out rebound your opponent, get some stops, create a significant disparity in the number of possessions, and simply outscore you. He has never been a defensive minded coach as was DES, and to be average or a little above average defensively was good enough to win most of the time for him.

That's the decided difference in their 2 coaching philosophies.

In saying all of this, I do not wish to make anyone believe that we cannot or will not improve in the future, God, at least I hope we will. What this group needed was a summer of PU and S &C and due to the COVID situation, that was not possible. If most of this team stays for another year, and gets those 2 things mentioned, I suspect that some of this that I have typed could take a 180 degree turn, especially when we drop some weight and add some new blood to the lineup.

I remember another "Thought for the day" that coach Smith gave us that states, " Everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but all the happiness and growth occurs while your climbing it".

If that statement is a truism, then I need to find a way to see the happy and growth part.

Thanks for the post 75, I enjoy your insight!

 

[Tarheels39]

I listened to the THI video of Roys post game after the Syracuse game and I don't recall hearing him say that Caleb does not know the offense.

Is there an expanded version of the post game somewhere? The one I listened to was around 10 minutes long.

 

[alabamaheel]

Great insight 75. I’ve always believed Roy to run and gun. I know defense is a priority to all coaches but some stress offense a whole lot more than others.

 

[IDUNK4HEELS]

After listening to post game comments by Roy and some players after the Syracuse game, it began me thinking about the differences in coaching philosophies of He and coach Smith. There has been a multitude of posts about the way Roy coaches and some believe his style is "outdated, archaic, or stubborn to a fault", and may be the cause for some issues that have plagued this team. Let me say that there is no other coach in the land of College Hoops that I would care to substitute in his place, and I also feel that he should coach UNC basketball until he doesn't want to coach any longer. In my opinion, and mine alone, as I don't intend this post to be the fire starter to roast Him, he has earned his position and it's not debatable when you review his entire body of work for his career. For those who have differing opinions I have this warning and words of caution, be careful what you wish, demand, or ask for, you might just get it, and you won't like it most likely.

Now, as to differences in coaching philosophies. Coach Smith always took more pleasure and satisfaction in not allowing the competition to run their offense by creating so much defensive pressure that the opposition made many more mistakes, had more empty possessions, and just wore down over the course of a game due to our defensive pressure. You knew you had done well, when, after a game, he came in smiling like a mule chewing briars. He actually would get somewhat giddy, if we held our opponents under 40% shooting for the game. If we had won the game, he would congratulate us on the win, and would point out what we should and could have done better. And, he was right, actually, he was always right when it came to basketball theorems. He was simply a genius in breaking down the sport of basketball into finite segments and studied the game endlessly. If we players could have implemented his directions at all times, we would have never lost, but..., we are all too familiar with imperfections of and in humans, so we lost games that easily could have been won, if we had just carried out directions. He never cared to run up scores or score an abundance of points, although he did like offense, he loved defense. He only wanted to make sure we scored 1 more point than them, as he was want to say. While he wanted us to feel the effects of not paying attention to details by losing, he never would let us be consumed by losses. He chaffed and got very defensive when a reporter tried to apply the word system to our program. To him, it was a philosophy or technical precept.
There will never be another like him, and that's kinda good, as it solidifies his place among the Mount Rushmore of coaches, but falls well short of defining what, and who he was off the court. Look..., I loved both of my parents, and am grateful that I had their love & support for their entire lives, however, if I could have picked a father out of this entire world, it would have been Coach Smith. That may raise a few eyebrows, but know this, there are more men than just myself, who will tell you the same.

Now, as for Roy's philosophy:

There have been a number of posters in this community that have been adamant that Roy's coaching philosophy is totally talent dependent. I agree with this, as when you review the success and failure of any team, the more talent you have, the more successful you are, that is obvious, is it not? So, what's the problem or issue(s)? Could it be that the talent we have on this team is not as great as it purported to be, or is it that we are so young and inexperienced, and uncoordinated that they collectively cannot chew gum and walk at the same time? Is it possible that some are ADD or have ADHD? I personally do not subscribe to the lack of talent, we are talented, that we can most likely all agree upon. In speaking just briefly with some former teammates and one very, very close within the program, it's not a problem in talent per se`. It's an issue with having the right talent. I know that this is going to most likely fuel some indignation in some, just remember, not all that I type is a product of my thinking. Every great, or even good team, has to have at it's point a player capable of initiating the offense and set the stage on the court for scoring opportunities. In the 24 games to date our PG's, particularly Caleb, has proven himself incapable of handling this most important position in the offense. Those that have followed Carolina Basketball for a number of years know and understand the importance of the PG spot. Before you disagree with any of the aforementioned concerning Caleb, go listen to the press conference by Roy after the Syracuse game as he made a statement regarding Caleb that I had to rewind and listen to, to make sure I heard him correctly. He said, and I quote "Caleb has not learned to run the offense". Why, after 24 games and approximately 80 practices, has he not learned the offense and how it needs to run? It's not because he is not talented, for he is certainly that. It has to go back to being coachable and basketball IQ, and that apparently is the problem or issue, and it certainly fits within the scope of what I have witnessed throughout this season. You can disagree, and that's ok, just be warned that his play to date will most likely not get to where he is consistently running and directing a productive offense, if he ever does. While his aspirations for the NBA has to be linked to the PG position, he has NO SHOT at making any NBA team with the credentials he currently has as a PG. Then why not RJ at PG? He too, has not learned to run the offense, and his shot decision making and passing is very much lacking and has not proved to be any more adept at running the offense than Caleb. When both play together, I just cringe, waiting for the avalanche of wild shots and poor passing judgment. Both can get better, and be very good players, and if Caleb stays for another season, and improves over the summer, we still need to find a PG with the natural PG mentality. It's as Gary7 has often mentioned, Roy is trying to put a round peg in a square hole with Caleb, and to this one's current thinking, he never will.

Roy learned at the feet of DES, and we certainly see the DES influence in the many ways that Roy coaches. However, Roy is decidedly different in approach to playing basketball.

Ever since he got a DIV 1 head coaching job, he has recruited players who could shoot and rebound. I imagine that he thought he had it with this group, but history says different.

His MO as a coach depends on the ability to make shots, out rebound your opponent, get some stops, create a significant disparity in the number of possessions, and simply outscore you. He has never been a defensive minded coach as was DES, and to be average or a little above average defensively was good enough to win most of the time for him, and there is no shame at all in this approach, as it has won more games and NC's than did DES.

That's the decided difference in their 2 coaching philosophies.

In saying all of this, I do not wish to make anyone believe that we cannot or will not improve in the future, God, at least I hope we will. What this group needed was a summer of PU and S &C and due to the COVID situation, that was not possible. If most of this team stays for another year, and gets those 2 things mentioned, I suspect that some of this that I have typed could take a 180 degree turn, especially when we drop some weight and add some new blood to the lineup.

I remember another "Thought for the day" that coach Smith gave us that states, " Everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but all the happiness and growth occurs while your climbing it".

If that statement is a truism, then I need to find a way to see the happy and growth part.

A solid and thoughtful and well written piece.

 

[Tarheel75]

I listened to the THI video of Roys post game after the Syracuse game and I don't recall hearing him say that Caleb does not know the offense.

Is there an expanded version of the post game somewhere? The one I listened to was around 10 minutes long.

The post game interview has been edited, and it's no longer on the PC from the other site, however, I do have several comments below from the thread on that PC posted that basically says the same thing. The thread is still active.

His answer was very clear: Caleb doesn't understand how offense works at this level, and RJ is too small to be effective. RJ needs an off-season of strength and conditioning, but after this many practices and games, it's not clear what will get Caleb to understand how the offense works.

Inexcusable. Roy just shockingly said in his presser that CL doesn’t understand how to play offense at this level. After a year of practice and games? That’s a bad public statement about a player and a bad sign for the future of the player. I’m beginning to believe Roy has accepted the harsh reality that CL will never be the answer at PG. Now what?


The above was stated in the thread titled ( UNC-Syracuse: Roy Williams Post Game ) I/C

Hope this helps.

 

[39 Feet Above Sea Level]

Thanks 75 and Gary for sharing your knowledge and understanding of the technical aspects of
Carolina basketball. One sure fire certainty. We are very lucky to have both Dean and Roy in the Carolina
Family.

 

[IDUNK4HEELS]

There is no question Carolina needs a true point guard but I am not sure that would appease a lot of fans. For example Britt was forced to play the point as a freshman and fans went after him and his play with no mercy because he was not the next coming of Phil Ford or Kenny Dmith.

 

[Tarheel75]

Yeah, I've made several posts over the years answering requests to explain the numbers system and now that you're mentioning it, what is interesting (and to me unfortunate) is that we've gone further and further away from Zones. As you said, Dean practiced them constantly and could pull one outta his bag-o'-tricks at any time that he hadn't used in ages, and the opponent hadn't prepared for. And I've never understood why Roy has eschewed Dean's Point Zone the past few years in favor of a straight 2-3 (which we suck at) when he did go Zone.

Interesting comments about the 2-3 zone. I cannot ever remember practicing or playing that zone one time, and I suspect that's why I did not even mention that defense above, we could have, but I do not recall it ever. Most likely DES thought it was not a very reliable defense, and that may be why we never employed that particular zone defense, to my knowledge and memory.

 

[gary-7]

Interesting comments about the 3-2 zone. I cannot ever remember practicing or playing that zone one time, and I suspect that's why I did not even mention that defense above, we could have, but I do not recall it ever. Most likely DES thought it was not a very reliable defense, and that may be why we never employed that particular zone defense, to my knowledge and memory.

75, I think you meant to type 2-3, but yes, that is exactly right.

At my very first coaching clinic, I actually got to ask Dean to explain the triggers of the Point Zone (which for those who don't know was disguised to look like a 2-3 but would match to the point and follow 1-3-1 principles) and he even mentioned he didn't like straight 2-3s in response to another coach's follow-up question.

 

[Tarheel75]

75, I think you meant to type 2-3, but yes, that is exactly right.

At my very first coaching clinic, I actually got to ask Dean to explain the triggers of the Point Zone (which for those who don't know was disguised to look like a 2-3 but would match to the point and follow 1-3-1 principles) and he even mentioned he didn't like straight 2-3s in response to another coach's follow-up question.

Made me laugh at myself. You see, this proves without a doubt that we never used that configurated zone, as I didn't even realize I had it mixed up. I fixed it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

So . . . how do we think Hubert's "system" will look - after learning under Dean, playing in the NBA, and apprenticing under Roy?

Should we expect to see something more like Dean's approach, something more like the NBA, or something more like Roy's approach?

Sure, we could wait 7 months and find out. But where's the fun in that?

 

[Tarheel75]

So . . . how do we think Hubert's "system" will look - after learning under Dean, playing in the NBA, and apprenticing under Roy?

Should we expect to see something more like Dean's approach, something more like the NBA, or something more like Roy's approach?

Sure, we could wait 7 months and find out. But where's the fun in that?

If I were to make a guess, I would say a mixture of both coaching philosophies with a good deal more emphasis on the defensive side.

 

[r_u_worthy]

If I were to make a guess, I would say a mixture of both coaching philosophies with a good deal more emphasis on the defensive side.

This is the thing that I am must interested in seeing how Coach Davis “blends” all the influences over his career as player and coach. I agree that defense will get emphasized but I expect that multiple schemes will get employed. This may not be accurate but I read at one time that on misses on UNC’s end it was man to man based back on defense and on makes it was check with the bench. Changing to disrupt the opponent’s rhythm was always a good tactic.

 

[Tarheel75]

This is the thing that I am must interested in seeing how Coach Davis “blends” all the influences over his career as player and coach. I agree that defense will get emphasized but I expect that multiple schemes will get employed. This may not be accurate but I read at one time that on misses on UNC’s end it was man to man based back on defense and on makes it was check with the bench. Changing to disrupt the opponent’s rhythm was always a good tactic.

Usually it was 22 or 23 defense if we missed which was man to man either 3/4 court or 1/2 court. 24 defense was used on OOB's to apply full court pressure man to man as I remember it. I would imagine we will see some or all of these employed by Hubert. Roy did not use full court man to man or run and jump very often during his tenure.

 

[sctarheel30]

Too long to read will wait for cliff notes version

 

[dlew71]

Enjoying the debate

For those who like to evaluate the defensive side of the ball and harp on coach williams go find the 1992 ACC championship game. Duke had a stretch five ( whom I despise) on that team and three others who could shoot the 3 ball. If I am not mistaken NC shot better than 55% from the field for the game and still lost by double digits because they could not defend Duke that day. Coach Smith was constantly switching defenses and players. NC won the first match up the year by going with ..... Wait for it ..... two Bigs to counter the stretch 5 and managed to pull it off. They could not replicate it for the second game and the championship unfortunately. I say all of that to say it takes scheme and players to make it all work and even the best, and NC clearly had two of the best coaches, cannot get every win. I appreciate both men for what they did best and look forward to coach Davis doing the same. He has the unique opportunity to blend the best of both while mixing in ingredients from his NBA days. Will be interesting to see it unfold and hopefully bring a championship or two 💪🏆

 

[bobcrane14]

I coached AAU for several years. I loved changing defenses to confuse the opponent and to make sure that my players were paying attention. I copied Coach Smith and always played man-to-man after a missed shot. After a make or dead ball, we mostly played point zone or box and one. I don't know why colleges don't employ gimmick defenses. I would play box and one against Buddy Boeheim and Syracuse. I think that we overanalyze the point guard position at. UNC. It's not complicated. It's the simplest game in the world. You improve with experience, but if you keep it simple and have talent like Phil Ford or Coby White, you are in great shape

 

[Archer2]

He(Hubert) has the unique opportunity to blend the best of both while mixing in ingredients from his NBA days. Will be interesting to see it unfold and hopefully bring a championship or two 💪🏆

Yes indeed. I really hope he runs more multiple defenses, I feel like we’ve become too predictable in general. As bc14 said, multiple defenses keeps the opponents guessing, makes them adjust on the fly, and keeps our guys more focused as well. Win-win as far as I‘m concerned.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Yes indeed. I really hope he runs more multiple defenses, I feel like we’ve become too predictable in general. As bc14 said, multiple defenses keeps the opponents guessing, makes them adjust on the fly, and keeps our guys more focused as well. Win-win as far as I‘m concerned.

I've always assumed running multiple defenses (or multiple offenses, as the case may be) becomes problematic if you have a lot of new players. As was the case with our last couple of years.

Even mature players - like our grad transfers in 2020 - can have too much to learn if it's their first year in the system and they are being asked to start or play starter minutes.

I could be wrong about that, of course, but that's always my worry when we have to rely on a lot of new guys.

 

[ChiShankCity]

Fact: Roy was the perfect fit at UNC and it's probably unrealistic to expect anyone after him to match his success and accomplishments.

Fact: Roy's coaching philosophy got outdated and it will be a problem if Hubert or any future coach sticks to those philosophies without updating them to match the current game.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

1st point = fact
2nd point = obvious opinion! (IMO completely misguided, but not surprising!)

Roy's system works when peeps get time to learn it and are dedicated/savvy enough to internalize it. Hubs has already said he will put his stamp and incorporate info he gleaned from all of his influences so there is no point in this unnecessary proclamation!

 

[DSouthr]

Oh yes, i agree that Roy is more tempo/offensive in his mindset than defensive these days.

It's interesting that when he got here he had to put that bunch thru some defensive boot-camp stuff to break bad habits, even taking the rims off in practice, but his emphasis seems to have morphed some. Trouble is (as you well know), our offensive efficiency depends on our ability to score in transition, and ya can't do that unless you play good defense.

As for Caleb, it's up to him to learn to balance being a Lead Guard with knowing when to supervise the show. As you mentioned, there's no overstating the absence of a normal Chapel Hill summer to get your feet wet. Lessee if he gets a head start on that in the next couple weeks.

Actually Gary/75, I would disagree a bit, while do very much agree with gary's usage of tempo as a main focus my issue is offense is not always tempo that leads to breaks, it has more and more over the last few years forced us more and more in to the half court offense and that I did not see as a strength for us at all. So for me to accept Roy as being more offensive minded than defensive minded I would have to split it between half court and breaking and that makes no sense to me. I actually did see Roy as more of a defensive coach than offensive, he did work hard to teach his defensive plan to his players and demanded it be proper executed, which as we saw last season is not always going to happen. As proof, I would offer Leaky as a starter, would not a truely offensive minded coach have installed more of a scoring threat at the wing (3)? How often did we go small with our 3 best jump shooters or even smaller yet with 4 shooters around a big? Our best offensive set was tossing up a bad jump shot and letting our bigs snag the offensive rebound for a stick back.

I recall many UNC teams, we would break even off scored baskets, saw a lot of walking it up lately? We were not exactly the old Loyola or Tark's old running rebs? LOL I did see Roy screaming get back on defense a lot, losing his mind when we gave up and easy basket because someone didn't move their feet or block out for a rebound. Sure seemed to me like he was much more vocal when we were on defense than when we were on offense. And for an offensive minded coach, being down double digits at the half and the other team barely hit 40, does not scream offensive minded coach to me.

 

[DSouthr]

Fact: Roy was the perfect fit at UNC and it's probably unrealistic to expect anyone after him to match his success and accomplishments.

Fact: Roy's coaching philosophy got outdated and it will be a problem if Hubert or any future coach sticks to those philosophies without updating them to match the current game.

Fact 1, may not be fair but that is going to be the expectation, the bar is set, this is UNC, is what it is.

Fact 2, come on man, you are letting your NBA love shine thru and that is why you are wrong. As more and more of the talents leaves the college game thru kids out of high school able to enter the draft as well as G league as well as that new league begins to drain more talent from the college game...The wheel will turn back to coaching college players to play the college game, that means developing talent over time and that is actually what Roy was best at and when you saw his schemes on both ends really take off. Rather than out dated, they could in a sense be seen as ahead of their time because the present is not filled with highly experienced teams that have been talent developed which is what Roys game plans needed to really look as they should. But the wheel is on its way back to the day when teams have to be developed and players stay all of most of their eligibility.

 

[ChiShankCity]

Fact 1, may not be fair but that is going to be the expectation, the bar is set, this is UNC, is what it is.

Fact 2, come on man, you are letting your NBA love shine thru and that is why you are wrong. As more and more of the talents leaves the college game thru kids out of high school able to enter the draft as well as G league as well as that new league begins to drain more talent from the college game...The wheel will turn back to coaching college players to play the college game, that means developing talent over time and that is actually what Roy was best at and when you saw his schemes on both ends really take off. Rather than out dated, they could in a sense be seen as ahead of their time because the present is not filled with highly experienced teams that have been talent developed which is what Roys game plans needed to really look as they should. But the wheel is on its way back to the day when teams have to be developed and players stay all of most of their eligibility.

Ehhh, not entirely what I meant. I don't prefer 1 year dudes over 4 year dudes. It depends on what kind of 4-year and 1-year dudes they are.

I don't think progress goes backwards so I disagree the game will ever go back to how it was unless there are some unbelievable rule changes. In fact, the less talent you have, the more analytically driven you probably should be because you need to get every ounce of efficiency out of your roster. Moneyball's premise was finding a market inefficiency because the A's had no payroll. It wasn't based on an analytics premise. They happened to find a market inefficiency at that time (on-base percentage over batting average).

I'm more speaking on some of Roy's in game stuff. I think always having 2 traditional bigs needs to be updated to one of those bigs being more of a skilled big who can shoot. I'm not sure that offensive rebounding should be emphasized to the degree it is (although, if your team struggles to score, you probably do need to emphasize it more). Giving your players freedom to shoot long 2's just needs to be thrown out of the playbook entirely, it's just a terrible shot. Defensively, I would rather not be so denial crazy on the wings and corners. We never have been a team that forces a lot of turnovers so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to deny so much. We just exposed to backdoors and 3's. Also, give up fewer 3pt attempts. A 36% 3-point shooter equals a 54% 2-point shooter.

Those aren't drastic changes and I think it would do good going forward.

If some of those things don't get updated, UNC will lack equity in the NBA like it does currently. Doesn't mean things need to be flipped upside down, but some evolution needs to take place.