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 There has been a multitude of posts about the way Roy coaches and some believe his style is "outdated, archaic, or stubborn to a fault", and may be the cause for some issues that have plagued this team.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.
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.
Last edited: