Heels Defeat Deacs 78-64
by RAJohnston on Feb 15, 2011 10:16 PM EST
Email
Print
In a game where the Deacs were outmanned inside, they managed to keep it respectable at the Dean Dome, losing 78-64. JT Terrell finished with 18 points and really showcased what he can do when he shoots the ball well. Harrison Barnes, Tyler Zeller, and John Henson were just way too much for Walker and Desrosiers to handle.
I am really proud of the way the Deacs fought back in the 2nd half. Down 41-28 at the half, we let the lead get back up to 60-43, then went on a 12-3 run to cut it to 63-55. UNC then went on a 11-0 run and closed it out. Our offense still has a lot of room to grow and we have to work on our shot selection, but all things considered, against a defense that is top 5 in the country (KenPom), we performed quite admirably.
Click through for SCACCHoops.com stats for the game
Team Stats
Wake Forest UNC
Bonus-PF
Dbl-12
No-6
Tempo
70.2
69.2
Off Eff
88.3
112.7
eFG%
44.3
40.1
TO %
19.9
11.6
O Reb %
21.1
43.8
D Reb %
56.2
78.9
FT Rate
13.1
39.4
% Safe
0.0
100.0
FG %
37.7
36.6
FT %
100.0
75.0
3P %
40.0
18.5
3FGA/FGA
32.8
38.0
Block %
5.7
10.1
Steal %
7.1
8.7
A/FGM
39.1
76.9
A/TO
0.6
2.5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
* indicates starter These stats are unofficial and reliant on a 3rd party service. If the stats are not updating, it is out of the control of SCACCHoops. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- I really loved the effort in the 2nd half by the guys tonight. We could folded it up, but we kept fighting and actually cut into the lead.
- Ty Walker had a few timely baskets, and really showed what he can do when he is in the right place to rebound. He still needs to work on his defensive rebounding, but he was really good tonight on the tip-dunks.
- JT Terrell showed another huge step as he really led the team out there tonight. He showed no fear and really tried to score the ball like he knows how. He could have pulled up and shot an "Ish-like" floater a couple of times, but that will come with time. I am really excited about his future with us.
- CJ Harris probably had a game that he would like to forget. He played and hustled really hard, but took a lot of bad shots and took us out of the game a bit.
- McKie took some bad shots as well, and really needs to get more involved on offense (better shot selection in particular). He had another 9 rebound effort tonight.
- Ari has been making some bad decisions on the court lately, and that has shown in the minutes played. He needs to shoot the ball better from behind the arc if he is going to be a major contributor. He can be a liability in terms of turnovers when he tries to dribble or do too much.
- G$ has the same problems, but his shooting is more than making up for it. He has proved that he can get to the basket, but needs to work on decision-making.
- We came out slow again and had to get our footing, but we fought back and I really loved seeing that. Focus was increased (see shooting from 3's and free throw line).
- The talent discrepancy between UNC and Wake Forest was painfully evident tonight. UNC is a very, very good team defensively, and they really took us out of our game and forced some really bad shots (a good amount of those were also on our guys though).
- I came into this game with poor expectations, but I was pleasantly surprised by what we did in the 2nd half. This gives me some optimism for the game on Saturday as FSU starts life without Chris Singleton (broken foot). Maybe we can play them closer than people think. :fingerscrossed
68 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Far and away better than my expectations.
Let’s get a win over the Noles, boys.
The loss wasn't as bad as losing against NC St. by 25 points, but it wasn't pretty enough
to feel that great about, except that we rolled over and died for only the first half. To quote DaDeacs:
I think the team hasn’t played for the coach, and that our best games have come based on individual performances, not based on us being a "team".
Harris shot 1-12, Terrell had his first good game since High Point, McKie followed up his clunker against NC State with another horrible shooting night, Ari Stewart was virtually invisible the whole game, Mescheriakov had 5 fouls in 10 minutes. The team just never looks prepared, and it shows when our ‘best’ games have come based on individual performances, which have been totally inconsistent. Re-reading the stats. of our key pieces (McKie here, Terrell here, Derosiers here, Harris here, Chennault here, and Walker here) – there is not one if you look at their performance as the season has worn on, who has consistently improved throughout the season. Even our guys who aren’t key to our future like Mescheriakov isn’t playing with any discipline at this point, the 11th conference game of the season. It’s not as bad as the NC State game, but losing by 14, playing with as little discipline as we did coming out of the gate, still no tangible signs of consistent improvement, the latest loss didn’t make me feel any better about our team’s undisciplined, listless state, it wasn’t any more credible an < L >, and simply hurt slightly less to watch.
Port Arthur, TX
by Screamin' Demons on Feb 15, 2011 11:56 PM EST reply actions
I think this is a situation where the stats don't show everything.
JTT has improved a lot on the court. His decision making has improved, he has become a better passer, he has certainly become a better teammate, and he is becoming more disciplined in taking shots.
I don’t think that we “rolled over and died for only the first half.” North Carolina is a very, very good team. We are not a good team. Even if we played to the best of our ability we probably would not have won this game. UNC went 5-27 from the 3 point line, and they still won by 14 points. They are a tremendously better team than us and have way more talent than we do.
I think that almost everybody (with the exception of one or two in particular that I am not going to name), has improved. Whether or not that is just natural improvement progression, or coaching is subjective. I think that Coach Bzdelik plays a bigger role in the development of the players individually, and as a team, than most people have given him credit for.
Also, Nikita Mescheriakov is probably the least disciplined player on the team. When he is out there (spot minutes) it is ok for him to pick up fouls. Yes he turns the ball over a lot, and that is why he doesn’t play that much (10 minutes tonight).
What signs of consistent improvement are you looking for? I agree that we had poor shot selection at times tonight. I credit that to UNC’s outstanding defense and length inside.They were able to stop pretty much anything that we wanted to take inside. Harris’ numbers speak to that because he had a much tougher time finishing (against one of the premier shot-blockers in the country) than he usually does against opponents that are not as good at interior defense.
You said “pretty enough” in your title…can you explain what you mean by that too? Would it only be pretty enough if we won, or what exactly are you looking for? Given the talent level of the team we played tonight, and the fact that CJ and Travis really struggled from the field, to lose by 14 in Chapel Hill gives me a peak of optimism. UNC beat FSU and NCSU both by 20 in their last two home games, and we kept it under that, even before the walk-ons game on for both teams.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
The Season
i never said stats. were everything. But when looking at an entire season, they’re more helpful (not saying you said this, it’s just usually the answer anyone here tends to get if stats. are ever used, e.g. #1 Response: Stats. aren’t everything, #2) Follow-Up: You’re manipulating the stats., #3) Follow-Up of #1 & #2): Well, even if you say stats. aren’t everything, and you’re not manipulating them, they look good to me … on an individuated basis, according to my eyeballs.) than an eyeball test.
What i said was that, like DaDeacs said (I agree with him):
I think the team hasn’t played for the coach, and that our best games have come based on individual performances, not based on us being a “team”.
That being said, if you look at the seasons each of our key players are having that I listed above, they are literally all over the map, and it’s not in an upward direction either. One peaks and the others fade into the abyss. Then the one that peaked does horribly, and everyone does marginally. Then everyone does horribly except for one player again. Just take a look. There is as much consistency our key players’ development over the course of the season as there is in a shane popham field goal attempt. Really, take a look.
Consistency for me is very simple:
1) Stringing together either consecutive excellent all-around games (sorry, 4-7 and 0’s across the board isn’t “progress,” that’s inevitable for at least one human if you put them among 5 on a basketball court for 40+ minutes).
2) Or demonstrable improvement over the course of the season in at least one area of a player’s game, verified by consistent strides in the right direction in that category. That leaves room for a question of “how good is good enough,” but sneak a peek at our key players’ development over the course of the season. Neither #1) or #2) are there in any way approaching a safe conclusion.
The players aren’t developing except in a spasmoidal kind of way putting in a good game individually every now and again (I implore you, please don’t just say “they look better to me,” with a source like “they just do to me,” look at their development over the season and tell me there’s something there that looks different, if you put this player development of these players on a scatter plot, and you disagree with me here, tell me how you would see this as this season’s gone on (charting games to performance, either overall performance (see my #1) or #2) proof positives of consistency above) – that is, something different from either this or this).
Examples of the Spasms:
1) At the 26th game of the season, the 11th in-conference game of the season, do you know how many double-digit rebound games Ty Walker and Carson Derosiers have combined for the 2010-2011 season? Zero. We’re talking a 5-star and a 4-star recruit, getting between 15 and 30+ minutes per game, for 26 games. Not a single double-digit rebounding game for either of them. That’s definitely not going in the right direction.
2) C.J. Harris’s development:
NC State: 4-10, 12 points, 5 assists, 2 turnovers.
Maryland: 2-4, 10 points, 1 assist, 4 turnovers.
Va. Tech: 3-7, 15 points, 3 assists, 4 turnovers.
Georgia Tech: 3-10, 7 points, 0 assists, 3 turnovers.
Duke: 2-9, 11 points, 3 assists, 4 turnovers.
Virginia: 2-8, 15 points, 7 assists, 3 turnovers.
Florida St.: 3-7, 8 points, 3 assists, 5 turnovers.
Maryland: 5-10, 17 points, 2 assists, 4 turnovers.
Miami: 3-3, 24 points, 4 assists, 2 turnovers.
NC St.: 2-6, 6 points, 6 assists, 4 turnovers.
UNC: 1-12, 4 points, 3 assists, 1 turnover.
3) Travis McKie’s development:
NC St.: 4-10, 8 points, 0 assists, 2 turnovers.
Maryland: 6-13, 13 points, 2 assists, 3 turnovers.
Virginia Tech: 5-12, 15 points, 0 assists, 2 turnovers.
Georgia Tech: 4-7, 8 points, 0 assists, 3 turnovers.
Duke: 5-9, 12 points, 0 assists, 0 turnovers.
Virginia: 4-6, 12 points, 0 assists, 2 turnovers.
Florida St.: 3-6, 6 points, 1 assist, 2 turnovers.
Maryland: 3-8, 10 points, 1 assists, 0 turnovers.
Miami: 4-7, 10 points, 2 assists, 2 turnovers.
NC St.: 6-16, 15 points, 0 assists, 2 turnovers.
UNC: 3-11, 2 assists, 4 turnovers.
4) J.T. Terrell’s development:
NC St.: 2-6, 8 points, 1 assist, 0 turnovers.
Maryland: 4-13, 8 points, 1 assist, 2 turnovers.
Virginia Tech: 5-12, 13 points, 3 assists, 2 turnovers.
Georgia Tech: 0-9, 3 points, 2 assists, 3 turnovers.
Duke: 2-7, 4 points, 2 assists, 1 turnover.
Virginia: 4-7, 11 points, 2 assists, 2 turnovers.
Florida St.: 2-7, 7 points, 2 assists, 2 turnovers.
Maryland: 2-5, 7 points, 0 assists, 3 turnovers.
Miami: 3-9, 10 points, 4 assists, 3 turnovers.
NC St.: 3-7, 7 points, 1 assist, 2 turnovers.
UNC: 6-10, 18 points, 0 assists, 1 turnover.
5) Carson Derosiers development:
NC St.: 2-8, 6 points, 7 rebounds.
Maryland: 1-8, 5 points, 9 rebounds.
Virginia Tech: 1-1, 2 points, 2 rebounds.
Georgia Tech: 1-3, 3 points, 5 rebounds.
Duke: 2-6, 5 points, 4 rebounds.
Virginia: 2-3, 5 points, 2 rebounds.
Florida St.: 1-3, 2 points, 2 rebounds.
Maryland: 5-7, 11 points, 5 rebounds.
Miami: 2-3, 5 points, 0 rebounds.
NC St.: 2-4, 6 points, 3 rebounds.
UNC: 0-2, 2 points, 4 rebounds.
The Game
“Pretty enough” means that we didn’t lose by the relative equivalent of losing by 25 points to the next-worst team in the ACC two times. We didn’t lose by the relative equivalent against UNC, but hurting less doesn’t mean feeling good, especially when the team only learns to play when UNC played their bench players for a good part of the second half. What’s more, UNC’s sophomore second-stringer Leslie McDonald scored as many points as our 2nd-leading scorer on our starting team. While embarrassing, that fact taken alone’s not the worst thing in the world, but they did play their bench substantially until they decided to put their first team back in and then that’s all she wrote, an 11-0 run.
Other things: When the coach is talking about getting the players to listen to him and getting good practices in, playing a zone defense against a team that we knew would initially pack the paint, and reeling off a season-high in fouls & handing them triple our own FTA. Couple that with Ty Walker’s virtually non-existent line (30 minutes, 4 blocks, 4 rebounds, 8 points). I know UNC’s good in 30 minutes at 7’0 on the 26th game of the season, the 11th conference game of the season, you would think he could get a double-digit rebound game).
To sum up so you know what I’m talking about in a more easy to read manner
1) Poor Discipline & Poor Preparedness: With all of the redundant talk of the coach about there being “tears in the locker room,” over, and over again, and so much talk from him about “giving the players a talking to about getting a good practice in,” reeling off a season-high in fouls/25 fouls isn’t a sign of greater discipline or preparedness. Surprise too, Bzdelik said after the game, again, “shucks, there are tears in the locker room again.”
2) Poor Preparedness – Zone Defense Fail: Speaking of the 25 fouls, we played a zone-defense for most of the game. A properly aligned & run zone defense is supposed to A) Limit fouls and B) Distribute fouls more evenly than when players play superior opponents man-to-man. Our “zone” neither limited our fouls nor did it distribute them evenly across our key players.
3) Poor Preparedness – More on Zone Defense Fail: Since UNC’s 1st-team shot 14 3’s in 142 minutes, and UNC’s 2nd-team shot 13 3’s in 58 minutes, I think it’s really hard to say that “look, it was the zone that worked!” when proportionately most of those chucked clangers were 2nd-teamers doing their best Jamal Crawford impersonation with a hefty lead, until we started to scratch our way back, and of course, then Roy & Co. woke up, stopped chucking 3’s, put in most of the 1st-teamers and slammed the door.
Don’t get me wrong at all. I love Wake Forest basketball and am loyal to a fault, but I think filtering out these details helps separate the wheat from the chaff – e.g., what we really have to look at once the noise and commercials are over with. When we’ve done this, in my opinion, if you look at all of that above, our player development just isn’t happening except in randomized spasms, and we’re not losing credibly. I didn’t expect for us to come into UNC & expect for us to beat them, but if the Tar Heels’ 2nd-team just plays slackass with a big lead and puts up 13 3’s in under half the floor-time that their 1st-team had, losing by 14 isn’t exactly exploiting opportunities, and having the zone defense do exactly the opposite of what it’s supposed to do isn’t preparedness.
To me, a 14 point loss, where we force 8 turnovers on 20 assists, and we have more turnovers than assists again, our zone defense designed to limit fouls and distribute them evenly sets a season-high in fouls and distributes them unevenly, and don’t show “swagger” or “poise”, or a “threat” to the other team until their “B”-team in the second-half who like most second teams with big leads decided to simply chuck threes with the big lead – UNC’s 1st-team shot 14 3’s in 142 minutes, UNC’s 2nd-team shot 13 3’s in 58 minutes – isn’t an
all things considered, we performed quite admirablykind of game to me, unless you are really, really, really reaching.
Port Arthur, TX
by Screamin' Demons on Feb 16, 2011 2:46 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Defense wins championships
I think this post by Screamin’ Demons is a great analysis….Defense is really where it is at if you want to win games. I see a lot of people criticizing our offense, but I think the biggest and easiest to improve would be defense. During the State game, our biggest problem was transition defense. D1 athletes should not have a problem getting back on defense and not allowing easy transition points.
During the Carolina game, our zone defense looked atrocious, as if we had never practiced running a bump 2-3 zone before. Too many times we were out of position in the zone and way out of position on rebounding. Yes, Carolina has much more size and athleticism than us, but that is no excuse for being out of position and not being able to box out….finally a zone defense is supposed to limit fouls when played properly. When you don’t slide your feet or help in a zone this will happen all to often.
by ironwill24 on Feb 16, 2011 10:18 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Screamin' is Right
That’s a very reasonable consistency test, our key players’ development is totally lurching, randomized, and in a spasm-like manner that’s either negative or treading water.
i especially don’t see how anyone but an unprepared HC would be unable to get a pair of 4 and 5-star 7’0 recruits to rebound in double-digits through 26 games, half of which were against lowly mid-major teams. That is not player development.
And excellent work on the others too, I just checked that out, and it sure as sunshine doesn’t look like the development of the others, Harris, Terrell, McKie, is anything but one of them taking one step forward, 3 steps back, a half-step forward, doing nothing, taking a step forward, two steps back, rinse & repeat. Unless one counts “losing = development,” which would make sense if P.J. Carlesimo was still “developing” Kevin Durant instead of Scott Brooks, it’s clear that our players are either not developing, or not developing as well as a competent coach would have them at this point in the season, the 26th game and 11th ACC.
5-star game analysis too, of stuff that wasn’t mentioned. Our zone-defense did exactly the opposite of what a zone defense does, & instead, like ironwill24 said, the zone 2-3 was atrocious.
A zone’s supposed to mitigate playing superior opponents, and yes, create fewer fouls and distribute them more evenly among your players, and we ended up fouling more than we have the entire season and the fouls weren’t evenly distributed at all. Some guys had 5 fouls, some guys had 3, some had zero or 1. The defense was all over the place and we were only able to claw ourselves back momentarily because their B-team threw up 3’s Daequan Cook style. It’s a total reach to say to this kind of game that “we performed admirably,” when this far in the season, we’re still listless on offense for startlingly lengthy periods and our defense, which is what wins college games, still looks unprepared and plays with no discipline.
Even after all of the coach’s talk about “good practices, we’re going to play more discipline.” Nobody thought we were going to win this won, but the only moment we showed ‘swagger’ or ‘challenged’ them was when their second-team was toying with us tossing up a bunch of bad heat-check 3PTA.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
Man, you guys are obssessed with stars. They mean little, in my opinion, especially once you get to college.
that's not what the Denver Post, CU & Tad Boyle are saying post-Bzdelik
The Denver Post: Krieger: CU Buffs’ lack of depth, big men catches up to them
BOULDER — As the Colorado men’s basketball team fades in the west, reality is trumping wishful thinking. First-year coach Tad Boyle did an admirable job of selling the implausible idea that a team can win consistently in one of the nation’s top basketball conferences with neither size nor depth. “Our tallest guy’s 6-8. We’re undersized every night we step out. A&M brings in three guys off the bench that are bigger than our starting center.” Not to mention the fact that CU’s starting “center,” Austin Dufault, is actually a finesse forward who averages fewer than five rebounds a game.
Good recruiting can solve these problems, but it will be too late for Higgins, and possibly for Burks, depending upon when the Buffs’ best player elects to declare for the NBA draft.
This is Jeff Bzdelik’s legacy, and for now, Boyle has to live with it. Bzdelik recruited two wonderful wing players in Burks and Higgins — and very little else. Boyle’s job now is to fill in all those blanks.
Considering that in 3 years at CU, Bzdelik ‘recruited’ two players whom weren’t even nationally-ranked, nine 2-star recruits, four 3-star recruits, & one lone 4-star recruit, and while playing in a substantially easier conference than the ACC, compiled a record of 36-58 overall, 24-21 against low mid-majors like we lost against this year, 10-38 in the Big 12, 10-63 playing in a “challenging” away environment, i’d say that the Denver Post, Tad Boyle, and Bzdelik’s teams would disagree with you on the point that “stars don’t matter.” Nobody wins recruiting “the little engines that could.” Especially not in the ACC. If you think so prove it, who’s won the ACC title or gotten very close recruiting people for whom “the stars didn’t matter”?
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Does every NBA lotter pick pan out? No, because some players are overrated. Should we hold Joe Alexander up to a high standard because he was the #8 pick? No, because now we now he is not an NBA player. Did his coach fail to develop him? Maybe, but maybe he was overrated.
Same thing with Walker. Just because he was a 5 star player three years ago does not mean he is going to be a great player. Some players just don’t work out.
You need 4 and 5-star recruits to win in the ACC
my argument’s not that every NBA lottery pick pans out, or that every 4 or 5-star pans out – it’s that teams built on zero, 2-star, and 3-star teams won’t win in the ACC.
I’d like you to prove your point. Who’s won the ACC title or gotten very close recruiting people for hom “the stars didn’t matter”?
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed.
If you’re concerned about 4 and 5 stars not panning out, there are exponentially more 2* and 3* players that don’t even play up to their star level out there. It is FAR rarer for a 2* to play like a 5* than it is for a 5* to play like a 2*.
Bah da da da da da da da, Go Deacs.
Blogger So Dear
by Martin Rickman on Feb 16, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’d like you to prove your point. Who’s won the ACC title or gotten very close recruiting people for hom "the stars didn’t matter"?
You love to do this. I never made that point.
i especially don’t see how anyone but an unprepared HC would be unable to get a pair of 4 and 5-star 7’0 recruits to rebound in double-digits through 26 games, half of which were against lowly mid-major teams. That is not player development.
This is what I am focused. It’s not always the coaches fault that a 5 star does not pan out. Sometimes the player is just overrated or does not live up to expectations, as Walker is doing.
I never said anything about winning the ACC, I was talking about 5 star recruits not panning out sometimes.
1) The first comment you made was
Man, you guys are obsessed with stars. They mean little, in my opinion, especially once you get to collegeand that didn’t mention Ty Walker once.
2) And based on that comment, if what you’re saying is exactly that,
you guys are obsessed with stars. They mean little, in my opinion, especially once you get to collegethen what is your point regarding the importance of stars? If you say that 4 and 5-star recruits don’t matter then what else are you saying except that we can win (I assume you’re speaking in-context, since this is Wake Forest, and if we win we have to win in the ACC) in the ACC without 4 and 5-star players?
3) If you said nothing in re #2, and were only talking only about 5-star recruits not panning out sometimes re Walker, the point of my first post is that it’s purely lackluster coaching that by 26 games into the season (and 11 conference games into the season), Bzdelik can’t get two 4 and 5-star 7’0 players (Walker and DeRosiers) to rebound in double-digits once, and the point of my second post was that Bzdelik’s recruiting sucks, that the Denver Post, CU, & Tad Boyle are saying that.
Taken together, this means that it’s much more likely that two 4 and 5-star 7’0 recruits both unable to get double digit rebounds once this season, are much more likely not panning out due to lackluster player development on the coach’s part, than two 4 and 5-star recruits idiosyncratically both not panning out at the same time “just because.” It’s very unlikely that two 4 and 5-star recruits disappear and disappoint at the same time, so the latter just seems probabilistically, very unlikely.
The second post was simply saying (repeating what the Denver Post, CU & Tad Boyle are saying about Bzdelik’s recruiting & the caliber of team he left behind) that stars aren’t overrated, that Bzdelik’s recruiting sucks and the Denver Post, CU, & Boyle are saying it, and that we can’t win in the ACC without properly developed 4 and 5-star players. Apologies if I misunderstood you JoshuaR
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
then what is your point regarding the importance of stars
They are not indicative of future success and a lack of success by a 5 star player does not automatically mean the coach has failed.
Bzdelik can’t get two 4 and 5-star 7’0 players (Walker and DeRosiers) to rebound in double-digits once
How many times did Dino get Walker to rebound in double digits?
Again, never did I say anything about Bzdelik’s future recruiting. My comment was on the obsession with players that were rated as 5 star recruits 3 years ago. We have new information about players now, why are we using old rankings?
Recruits:
1) What I’m not saying: Lack of success of a 5-star player automatically means the coach has failed
2) What I am saying: There’s a much higher likelihood that the coach has failed, and a much lower likelihood that two 4 and 5-star players haven’t panned out at the same time, when two 4 and 5-star recruits both fail to improve over the course of the same season.
Response to Your Dino-Ty Walker Arg.:
1) In 2008-2009 Dino begged Walker to redshirt because there wouldn’t be enough space for him his freshman year on the depth chart, but he didn’t probably because he thought he’d get enough PT to show up enough on-court to get some early draft value or make a draft.
1A) In 2008-2009 we had Chas McFarland, David Weaver, Tony Woods, ahead of him. In 2009-2010 we had those same 3 ahead of him on the depth chart.
1B) Obviously that’s why Walker didn’t get any development time. We had those guys plus stars like James Johnson, Al Farouq Aminu, Jeff Teague, and veteran role players like Harvey Hale, L.D. Williams, & Ish Smith, and among all of those centers, stars, and veteran depth there obviously weren’t any of minutes to spare for development Walker’s freshman year.
2) As a result, Walker played more minutes in the first game of this season than he did in his combined minutes for the entire season of 2008-2009 (in which he played a total of 29 minutes)
2A) As a result, Walker played more minutes in the first 2 games of this season than he did in his combined total minutes for the entire season of 2009-2010 (in which he played a total of 40 minutes).
So to respond with
How many times did Dino get Walker to rebound in double digits?is just a red herring. We planned & begged for Walker to redshirt so Dino could develop him, which Walker refused, Walker paid the price his first two years because he was behind 3 big guys and a stable of star and veteran role players, and looking at his minutes totals where he has had as many total minutes in the first 2 games of the 2010-2011 season as he did for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 seasons combined, I think it’s a little disingenuous to bring up Gaudio when questioning Walker’s development. His first realistic shot at development was this year, and based on the (I think & think most people would agree) fact that it’s far less likely that two 4 and 5-star recruits fail to develop/pan out at the same time “just because,” rather than two 4 and 5-star recruits failing to develop in the same season because the coach just isn’t developing them well.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
So it’s not Dino’s fault that he didn’t develop him in two seasons but it’s Bzdelik’s fault he hasn’t developed in half a season. Got it.
i see you’re not a fan of context. It’s not any coach’s fault if there is a depth chart of 3 centers ahead of a 4th center, Walker, and Walker refuses to redshirt his first year, and gets sparse PT for not one but two seasons.
It’s Bzdelik’s fault if in Walker’s first full season in as a junior, when he ought to only be a sophomore, he plays more minutes in his first 2 games than he did in his first 2 eligible seasons combined, and both he and Carson Derosiers fail to net one double-digit rebounding game for the entire season.
Since you seem to think Walker could have in any 2008-2009 or 2009-2010 reality developed after having refused Gaudio’s advice to redshirt given the stable of players ahead of him, in order to give Walker adequate time for Dino to play him, what in your mind could Dino have done to get Walker to do in 1/1000 as many minutes as Bzdelik’s failed to get Walker to do in exponentially more minutes. Thoughts?
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
I didn’t realize game time was the only way to improve.
At this point in his career, there is little time for him to improve. That’s his fault he didn’t redshirt, not Dino’s and not Bzdelik’s. You can’t expect Bzdelik to come in and turn around a player who has been sitting on the bench for two years. He can’t control that.
As for his rebounds, he is a bad rebounder, which is his fault. He jumps to block every ball, which puts him out of position to rebound. Bzdelik can tell him all he wants to stop but it looks like he is going to keep doing it.
But whatever, keep blaming everything thats wrong with this season on Bzdelik. It’s clear nothing is going to convince you otherwise.
If were playing the blame game
What would you blame the lack of success on? Young players? New System? Cold Weather?
Plenty of other teams have had to deal with all of these with new coaches and have had less in the cupboard than Buzz – yet we looked like a JV high school team when we started the season. I think Tom Crean’s indiana team looked better than us when he got sampson’d out of all his players a couple of years ago.
The other fact is that, while there have been a few good games here and there, nothing is consistently better and we haven’t put up 2 back to back competitive (not even good – just competitive) games against teams that aren’t world beaters (the ACC is down this year besides Duke/UNC).
I think the blame has to fall on Buzz, otherwise we are just chalking this year up to youth and inexperience, which seems like a cop out to me. And what are we going to do next year when we win 10 or 12 games – call that progress???
by DaDeacs on Feb 16, 2011 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Nice
yeah apparently JoshuaR thinks it’s just as or more plausible to blame a coach who had no minutes to give him than a coach who had minutes and an entire season to develop him. I don’t think we’ll reach him on this. Apparently the fact that the kid can’t rebound is the kid’s fault too, certainly nothing a HC like Bzdelik can help with or mitigate.
Plenty of other teams have had to deal with all of these with new coaches and have had less in the cupboard than Buzz – yet we looked like a JV high school team when we started the season. I think Tom Crean’s indiana team looked better than us when he got sampson’d out of all his players a couple of years ago.
The other fact is that, while there have been a few good games here and there, nothing is consistently better and we haven’t put up 2 back to back competitive (not even good – just competitive) games against teams that aren’t world beaters (the ACC is down this year besides Duke/UNC).
Exactly.
I think the blame has to fall on Buzz, otherwise we are just chalking this year up to youth and inexperience, which seems like a cop out to me.
Exactly. I feel like once certain persons on ‘the other side’ of the Bzz train-derailment are presented with enough bad information on how truly uncompetitive (like you said, not just not winning occasionally, but losing consistently in uncompetitive style w/no credibility whatsoever) Bzdelik’s basketball team has been, we somehow become blameworthy for all of the bad news, e.g., comments like “keep blaming everything that’s wrong with this season on Bzdelik” in response to this question
Since you seem to think Walker could have in any 2008-2009 or 2009-2010 reality developed after having refused Gaudio’s advice to redshirt given the stable of players ahead of him, in order to give Walker adequate time for Dino to play him, what in your mind could Dino have done to get Walker to do in 1/1000 as many minutes as Bzdelik’s failed to get Walker to do in exponentially more minutes. Thoughts?
No answer at all how the previous coach could have given him minutes to develop taking into acct. his begging Walker to redshirt for a year, compared with Bzdelik having an entire season to show Walker and Derosiers how to play like bigs. None at all. It’s our fault, because we’re holding a HC responsible for a young player who isn’t any better than he was at the beginning of the season. Har
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
yeah apparently JoshuaR thinks it’s just as or more plausible to blame a coach who had no minutes to give him than a coach who had minutes and an entire season to develop him.
Bzdelik has been here an entire season?
Walker’s failure is not all on Dino. You want to put it on the coaches, put some on Dino since he had 2 full seasons to develop him in practice but didn’t or couldn’t.
Again, development does not have to happen in games. It can happen in practice and in the off season.
Look at Khris Middleton. He got no time at A&M last year behind Sloan and look at him this year. So a lack of playing time is not a great reason for lack of development.
None at all. It’s our fault, because we’re holding a HC responsible for a young player who isn’t any better than he was at the beginning of the season.
I’m done with you.
Last thing
I find it funny that you can attack the other side of your argument but anytime some attacks your side, it can not be stood for.
I get the feeling you are belittling me from this post.
belittled sounds a little alarmist, i don't see any belittling here, GTS/DaDeacs are asking you reasonable questions
You steamed that Gaudio is at least as culpable for Woods despite all evidence GTS cited to the contrary, saying that Walker could’ve developed through sheer ‘practice,’ and he restated that you seem to think it’s
as or more plausible to blame a coach who had no minutes to give him than a coach who had minutes and an entire season to develop him.GTS, DaDeacs, & now, I, agree, we think you’re playing an untenable blame-game because you don’t say how Gaudio could be at least as accountable for developing a player like Walker except by saying “there’s practice,” cherrypicking some player at A&M, saying it could be the player’s fault without saying anything more, and culminating it all by saying we’re just being stubborn and want Bzdelik’s head.
Which is a little silly, since Deac Dad’s Fanpost got deleted precisely because comments like that are ridic. – ie making sttms. like “people like me and/or DaDeacs and/or GTS just want to blame Bzdelik,” with no proof of that at all (none of us have made it a personal vendetta, we’ve actually cited tons more information than you have) – when we’ve all cited widely available information like depth charts and minutes to demonstrate why it’s Bzdelik’s responsibility to develop young players he has on his team.
Where exactly do you feel belittled JoshuaR?
Port Arthur, TX
by Screamin' Demons on Feb 16, 2011 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
Blame
Goes to a number of people
- Bzdelik – Sure he deserves some of the blame (definitely not all of it though and definitely not all of it for Walker’s play)
- Players- They make stupid mistakes, take bad shots, don’t hustle 100% of the time. It’s about mental toughness and focus and some of that belongs on the players.
And by a number of people
I decided to limit it to the coaches and players. You can’t put it all on Bzdelik, that’s not fair based on the games. He can’t stop them from taking a bad shot because he has the future to think about.
Is he going to bench Stewart or Terrell for an entire game because they take a bad shot? He shouldn’t but that means they are going to be out there on the court taking bad shots. Until they learn what it a bad shot, the team is going to struggle. Don’t know how Bzdelik can hold their hand in game and tell them when to shoot and when they are in a bad shooting spot.
Plenty of other teams have had to deal with all of these with new coaches and have had less in the cupboard than Buzz – yet we looked like a JV high school team when we started the season.
I’m not trying to be dense, but what teams have had to deal with a new coach, yet also had less in the cupboard that Coach Bzdelik? If you can, will you find one that had the injuries and suspensions preseason like we did? I’m not trying to be rude or hard to deal with, I just think that Wake Forest is in a very unique situation this year and not many teams have had to go through what we have gone through.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
OK, lets take the current ACC coaches
And I’m sorry, but injuries? Our backup PG (3rd man of the bench) missed time. Besides that, what injuries? I know JTT had a broken hand or whatever but he didnt miss any time.
And lets set the table too, Buzz inherited a team that lost 4 starters and 60% of its scoring. He also inherited the #12 recruiting class in the nation. Here goes the examples:
NC State
Sidney Lowe
- Inherited a team that lost 70% of its scoring from the previous year
- Inherited a sub-top 25 recruting class
- team went 20-16, with an NIT birth
- Can everyone consider Sidney Lowe a lame duck coach after 4 years? But look what he did year 1
Florida State
Leonard Hamilton
- Inherited a team that lost its top 3 scorers, and 4 of the top 6 (exactly the same as Buzz)
- Inherited a sub top 50 recruitng class
- Inherited a 12-17 team
- In his 1st year he finished 5-11 in the ACC and 14-15 overall
- Improvement all around
This is taking way too long to gather all this stuff – so how bout I start with those two. I am not even going into the Bobby Knights, Roy Williams’ of the world, Leonard Hamilton and Sidney Lowe are not upper echelon coaches, and they did a whole hell of a lot more with the same or less than Buzz has.
Its wasy to sit back and say woe is me, we’ve had injuries and kicked polayers off our team – but at the end of the day, someone has to be accountable for the team. And, as I mentioned before, how do you just chalk up a bad year and say “growing pains” – and then come out and say he doesnt necessarily think players will get better next year just through experence? Based on the gain of whats coming in next year, that makes me even less optimistic.
Outside of the Staak years (which is what it is looking like the Buzz years will look like) we have only had 1 season since 1945 where we have less than 3 wins, much less only 1.
by DaDeacs on Feb 17, 2011 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Tony Chennault was going to be our starting PG...
Tabb missed the first month of practice with Mono, JTT missed the preseason with a broken hand, and Chennault wasn’t playing either.
That is a significant part of the team out during a time where teams do a lot to get better, especially when the starting point guard is out.
I’m going to look at those two cases and get back to you. I will hand it to you…they do at first glance look similar. I’ll jump into the numbers a little bit and see where they had talent and why they succeeded. Thanks!
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
Point taken about the injuries
Although, I never knew Tony was going to be our starting PG – interested, so they never thought CJ was a good fit?
He never played PG in high school.
The SG is his natural position. That’s why he had a lot of trouble adjusting early in the year. He spelled Ish last year a bit and they thought he was going to do the same with TC this year.
Our offense really suffered because of that in the first few weeks/couple of months of the season.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
I think that inconsistency is what the stats show, which is what I think almost all of our players are.
The zone 2-3 did exactly what it was supposed to do last night. Should we have contested some more 3’s? Of course, Were we a little slow in sliding over and helping last night? Of course, but we were within 8 points in the 2nd half because UNC kept shooting the 3’s and missing. I know you think that it was the “second-team toying with us by tossing up a bunch of bad heat-check 3PTA”, but we still got within 8 in the second half, after being down by 18 earlier in the half. That says a lot to me about the defense doing what Coach Bzdelik wanted.
I
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
dude, how did the zone look good to you? We set a season-high in fouls, which is never supposed to happen in a properly run 2-3 zone, the fouls were not evenly distributed, which is what is supposed to happen in a 2-3 zone, and we only clawed our way back when UNC’s 2nd team shot the same number of 3PTA as their 1st team in under half as many minutes. So we ‘still’ got within 8, but that doesn’t mean anything when they had a substantial lead and let the B-team do whatever they wanted with it for 10 minutes, then took them off the floor, stopped sending up Daequan Cook hopefuls and finished by beating us by 14 instead of 18. I don’t see at all what you’re getting at by this “it says alot to me about the defense doing what Coach Bzdelik wanted,” unless you just ignore all of this or understand it but pretend any further details are irrelevant.
Given that we:
A) Fouled a season high & in undistributed fashion running a defense that’s supposed, when prepared & disciplined like IronWill 24 & Screamin’ said, to minimize & evenly distribute fouls
B) UNC’s backups shot 13 3’s in 58 minutes and UNC’s A-team shot 14 in 142.
How is it more likely that the zone “worked”?
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
I feel like you are taking out the caliber of the opponents.
UNC is a huge team inside, and that led to a lot of rebounds (which happens in a zone), and a lot of fouls when they go right back up. They weren’t a lot of questionable fouls. We were hammering them inside to make them work for their points.
It is obvious that we were ok with them shooting 3’s, which they did. They went inside when Barnes/Zeller/Henson were in the game because it was obvious that we couldn’t stop them. If we had run a man to man there is just absolutely no way that we could have guarded them. They are more talented at every single possession than we are.
The zone worked much better than man to man would have worked, and it allowed us to force them into jacking up 3’s, even if it was with their second team.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
I am not trying to argue that the zone was "good". There were a ton of flaws in it...
but it did what it was supposed to do…force UNC to shoots 3’s.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
so basically RA, you think it’s attributable to the “effective zone” defense that half of the 3’s were taken by the 2nd-team in garbage minutes while UNC was leading by 18?
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agreed with Screamin', IronWill24, & JoshuaR that the zone wasn't prepared and wasn't disciplined
not that man-to-man would’ve worked better, or that a properly disciplined zone would have somehow had us “win” the game. Simply that the zone was ineffective, unless you think it’s attributable to the "effective zone" defense that half of the 3’s were taken by the 2nd-team in garbage minutes (as many 3FGA as the “A” team in less than half the “A” team’s floor time, with a large lead) while UNC was leading by 18, the zone was ineffective and while we all knew we would lose this game, there could have been a moral victory if the defense we were planning to play actually did what it was supposed to do – force more 3’s from the first team, not accrue 3’s from the second-team in heat-check time with a lead just short of 20 points – foul less, and foul more evenly. The ‘zone’ wasn’t good unless you think the deluge of 2nd-team 3FGA in garbage minutes are what you bet your $$$ on, which I don’t think is very convincing.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Fouls
Where are you getting this idea that fouls have to be evenly distributed in a zone? Also, how many of those fouls were in the backcourt or on the offensive end? You can’t say a zone didn’t work because we fouled too much and the fouls were not evenly distributed.
The zone was not good, I am not arguing that. I just disagree with your point.
See here (#1, #2 & #3 are supplemental)
Strengths of the 2-3 Zone Defense:
Using a 2–3 more evenly distributes fouls throughout the players on defense, meaning foul-prone players are less likely to accumulate many fouls or foul out.
See also here, from former coach of the Stetson Hatters:
Fouls are committed less frequently. A switch to a zone defense when a key player has accumulated several fouls is wise in many cases.
Or Oregon’s experience playing UCLA & USC last year:
Oregon averaged committing 23.4 fouls in the first seven Pac-10 games. After switching to a zone defense last week, the Ducks were called for 15 personal fouls against UCLA and 11 against USC.
Given that McKie and Stewart had 2 fouls combined, Harris, Clark, & Chennault had 12 combined, and Walker, Derosiers, & Mescheriakov had 9 combined (I did watch the game too), I’d say that the fouls were all over the place/above that of a properly run zone/unevently distributed unlike a properly disciplined zone, and weren’t just part of our guards trying to catch up with their guards. The forwards didn’t have many fouls, but the guards and big guys did by a huge margin, and a proper, correctly-run zone where guys are disciplined to both get back and defend their zone doesn’t have as marked a difference in fouls per player as our ‘zone’ did.
If you have any information on whether the fouls were committed in the backcourt or on the offensive end that’d be awesome, I haven’t been able to find that yet. I am glad that we agree that the zone was not good.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
Agree to disagree
I just don’t think you can expect an even distribution of fouls between players when playing a zone defense the entire game.
P.O.V. from the Dean Dome
I was there, and can say that in the second half there was a “swagger” (and I exercise that lightly) among the team. They played with a very strong demeanor and the sideline dynamic was very different than I have seen before.
One thing though… I noticed something about McKie. When he would slash to the hoop, he is looking at his feet. He gets too far in and can’t make a play. I think that aside from Carson and TC, Travis has the most potential on the young team. He is well sized and we know he can score. He shows great signs of being a leader, and is a very likable Deacon. With some more size/strength, awareness, and fundamentals work on the off-season, he could really be a force. (To me he looks like a very young and un-polished Kevin Durant… any takers?)
I can tell you one thing… looking around the dean dome with about 6 to go, you couldn’t have slipped a greased string from many of the rear-ends of the Holes fans. That was just sweet. I will always prefer a win, but after the year we have had the thrill of seeing such a cocky team against the ropes and kind of scared was awfully fun.
jfizzle86... Go DEACS!!
Thanks for the P.O.V Fizz...
I noticed the “swagger” you are talking about. JTT is fearless, and when he is hitting his teammates ride him and they start to feel it too. He is a natural born leader and you can tell that people are drawn to him. There are different types of leaders: guys like Randolph Childress (I think JTT is in this category), and Tim Duncan types (lead by example/helps others), are the two primary groups (imo).
I also noticed that there was something a little off with Travis tonight. I’m not sure if he is focusing on stuff that he is learning in practice, but he is straying further from the basket, and when he drives, he seems to hesitate and look to pass first. It could have been an aberration tonight because we had no hope of driving in and getting to the basket with Henson/Zeller/Barnes in there, so I will look for it on Saturday against FSU.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
The players are getting better...
but the question is how much of it is just naturally adjusting to the speed and increased competition of the ACC, and how much of it is due to coaching? I just don’t know at this point, and I’m not ready to place credit anywhere until I have some definitive, substantiated proof one way or the other.
Bah da da da da da da da, Go Deacs.
Blogger So Dear
I was pretty close on my prediction
I guessed 13 points, it was 14 – and I said there were a lot of ifs that needed to happen. Unfortunately, most of the ifs I talked about didn’t happen – it seems we caught UNC on bad night.
The positives I take away from this game are that we didn’t let a poor shooting/bad decision making night from the Heels get to a blow-out – we stayed in the game, didn’t get demoralized, and legitimately had some life. I think from the mental side of the game, this should help the team moving forward. Pre-shot, the zone seemed to work pretty well.
The negatives I saw is that we still are completely undisciplined on the floor, picking up stupid fouls and still playing the one-on-one game on the offensive side of the ball, relying on our shooters to “make something happen” – I mean Kendall Marshall had as many assists as our whole team. Our post-shot defense was horrible, after a shot was put up, we stood around hoping the ball would come to us, meanwhile Henson and Zeller are getting in position after every 3 put up.
I felt like RA the whole time the game was going on, that it felt much worse than it was. We were done by like 16 right before our surge to get it 8 and I keep looking at the scoreboard thinking, we havent got a defensive rebound in the past 5 minutes, how are we still this close?
My gut says that we played “up” to competition last night, same with Duke a couple of weeks ago, and we are going to get waxed by a short handed Seminole team this weekend – we have made small time players look like super stars in the past (RE: Reggie Johnson, Manny Atkins, CJ Leslie x2) and Singleton had an off game the last time we played and we still lost by 20 something.
I am happy to see we kept the game close, I am glad to see some life in this team. My gut is still that we won’t win another game this year, and will be killed by 20+ by every team left, except for maybe Georgia Tech.
Coach Buzz for President in 2012.
by DaDeacs on Feb 16, 2011 10:14 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Agree with what you said for the most part, but CJ Leslie isn't a small time player...
he is a lottery pick in this year’s draft.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
Potentially
He has the potential to be – right now, I dont think he’s anywhere close to a lottery pick. Right now, he’s a project, poor shooter all around who is athletic with decent handles as a 3/4 who has a knack to get the board – his best two games have been against us, againsy everyone else he’s jekyl & hyde. Hes not Marvin Williams coming out, or Farouq for that matter. Best guess? He stays another year, leaves next year – picked in the mid to late first round by a contendor who has time to develop him.
An expert's opinion
Chad Ford has CJ Leslie as a Top 10 pick and the #25 overall prospect. Teams frequently use lottery picks based on potential, especially for big men.
that doesn't always happen
Can’t get to that link, it’s for ESPN Insider Access Only. At various points Ford projected Ed Davis a #8 pick instead of a #13, Ekpe Udoh to be a #15th pick instead of a #6, and others (not Ford) sometimes even put Cole Aldrich as a potential lottery pick, using that same rationale that sometimes a team will reach for a big man, even at the low lottery level.
Ford’s mock draft 2.0 rarely resembles his 7.2, so even if he thinks Leslie may be that high who knows what he’ll think by the time they do physicals and other players have shown off in their conference & NCAA tournaments.
DraftExpress has Leslie as going #23, not lottery, in their latest mock, and his stock’s value has decreased consistently (in their mocks). Just saying, I think at this point Leslie’s not near a consensus pick and alot closer to what DaDeacs is saying – potentially a higher pick than #23, but with extra emphasis being on “potential,” rather than “high pick.”
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Either way, he is better than a "small time player". That was my only point.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
i just don't think anyone can say that
based on an early Chad Ford (1.0? I haven’t kept up with what no. we’re on by now yet) mock when his stock’s been falling and his early early-pick prediction was based on the idea that a team would reach for him
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
What is your definition of a "small-time player"?
Any first round draft pick in the NBA is not a “small-time player”.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
i disagree with you there, it IS possible for a first round pick in the NBA to be a “small-time player”.
He may be better than ‘small-time’ at certain points in his college career, but if we’re talking an NCAA player rated by NBA standards, there are copious small-time NBA first-round picks.
Julian Wright, Craig Brackins, Acie Law, Sean Williams, Daequan Cook, Joe Alexander, Morris Almond, Alando Tucker, Jarvaris Crittenton, Greivis Vazquez, Quincy Pondexter, Yi, Gerald Henderson, Hansmule, DeMarre Carroll, Wayne Ellington, Byron Mullens, Hilton Armstrong, Kosta Koufus, J.R. Giddens, Donte Greene, Darrell Arthur.
These were near-universally agreed-upon first round NBA draft picks that weren’t considered big-time. I think if you mean by “NBA first round pick = big-time college player,” I think the correct way of saying it is simply “big-time college player,” because there are armies of these Lee Nailons for every Roy Hibbert. College is replete with “big-time” college players who aren’t, when evaluated in an NBA first-round context, anything but small-time NBA first rounders.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that it's an early release
And I apologize that I linked to an insider article when not all people have it. It’s not as comprehensive as the the one’s in the future will be, but I just thought that I’d point out where someone who is considered an expert had put him.
I also think that I would disagree with your definition of small time draft picks, especially with how highly touted some of the players mentioned were going into the draft (specifically Alexander and Yi). It’s somewhat a “hindsight is 20/20” perspective, because we can look at these players and say that they are now not big time players by NBA standards (or even small time). My perspective is that if the player is drafted in the top 10, they should be considered a “big time” draft pick. So if Leslie is currently considered to have that potential (and that may change), the jury should still be out on whether he is big time or small time.
I agree that Leslie’s more “potential” than “high draft pick” as of 2/16/10.
On the “big time/small time” player thing. Even if you simply remove Yi & Joe Alexander, the arg. that a player can be drafted in the 1st round of the NBA draft and be “small time” still holds strong.
Hansmule, Gerald Henderson, Shelden Williams, Maurice Ager, Greivis Vazquez, Adam Morrison, Wayne Ellington, Acie Law, Alando Tucker, Jarvaris Crittenton, Sean Williams, Julian Wright, Hilton Armstrong, Craig Brackins, Daequan Cook, Morris Almond, Darrell Arthur, Quincy Pondexter, Donte Greene, Byron Mullens, J.R. Giddens, Mardy Collins.
These are all guys who were predicted to be “small time” by the NBA’s experts. These are not guys who were predicted as boom then went bust. They are guys who were predicted to go in first rounds at points where the first round talent ceased to be “big time” and became “small time.” Of course, this varied depending on the strength of each year’s draft.
Again, I think if it goes “NBA 1st round draft pick = big time, therefore = big time college player translated into NBA terms,” I disagree and think the correct way of saying this when talking about such players as those listed above who were predicted to be small time contributors regardless of their draft position which was generally dependent upon the relative strength/weakness of their draft’s strength, is simply “big-time college player.” There are tons & tons of 1st round Adam Morrisons, Shelden Williamses, & Lee Nailons (guys drafted in the first round who weren’t considered “big time” intrinsically due to their being selected in the 1st round), for every 1st round Roy Hibbert – there are clearly small-time NBA first-rounders who are small-time because they are considered small-time in the NBA, not because they’re busts like Jianlian and Alexander.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
I feel like as we continued, I understood a little better what your point of view was. Especially as you get to the late side of the 1st round, contribution goes down. There are rare cases (Glenn Davis), but, overall, they are more small time than big time.
i didnt watch the game, but what is going on the JTT’s line? bunch of points, zero rebounds, zero assists. seems like a similar line for many games. ball hog? does he sit on the 3 point line and never try to rebound?
check out Screamin's analysis,
it doesn’t have his rebounds but it’s got great stuff on the players, player "development, the season and the game
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
Before yesterday JTT had increased assists and rebounds.
During the game yesterday the guards were all getting back in transition for us an not attacking the boards.
He didn’t hog the ball yesterday in particular. The offense wasn’t working at all because of UNC being in the passing lanes, so it became a lot of one on one. That accounts for the lack of assists and rebounds.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
to elaborate more on what RA said
Terrell’s ‘increased’ assists & boards, over the season, to borrow from Screamin’ Demons and others who have posted this info:
NC St.: 0 rebounds, 1 assist.
Maryland: 0 rebounds, 1 assist.
Virginia Tech: 2 rebounds, 3 assists.
Georgia Tech: 4 rebounds, 2 assists.
Duke: 1 rebound, 2 assists.
Virginia: 1 rebound, 2 assists.
Florida State: 3 rebounds, 2 assists.
Maryland: 2 rebounds, 0 assists.
Miami: 3 rebounds, 4 assists.
NC State: 2 rebounds, 1 assist.
UNC: 0 rebounds, 0 assists.
In the 3 games (combined) before UNC, JTT had 7 rebounds, 5 assists total. IMO if you leave it at “before the UNC game JTT had increased assists & boards” it sounds like he was improving markedly, much more than these #‘s indicate, but if you look at the actual work he did over that period of time, or over the course of these 11 ACC-conference games, his play’s been terribly slight and hasn’t gotten much better except for the Miami game.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
He is improving markedly.
He is getting more rebounds and assists than he was at the beginning of the year. He is also playing much better all-around even though the stats don’t show that.
If you want to look at stats and base your argument that is fine. I am using by subjectivity in watching the game and think that he has improved “markedly”.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
*my subjectivity
and also the fact that he is doing the little things to try to help the team win.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
okie doke
subjectivity vs. subjectivity + #’s it is
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
Have you been watching the games?
Do you think that JTT looks better on the court and is buying in to Coach Bzdelik’s system? Stop looking at the numbers for a minute. I just want to hear your opinion on JTT.
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
yes i have, (have you?)
i don’t think he looks any better, he just seems to be “there” sometimes and be “somewhere else” sometimes, and the times he’s there, it seems more like it’s because he’s sheerly adapting to his ACC opponents, not buying into coach bzdelik’s system (which i’m not even sure i know what it is, 26 games into the season).
Terrell to me looks like when he is better it’s so slightly better that it might as well be or is ACC-osmosis. He doesn’t look like he’s any more deliberate (taking smarter shots on a regular – e.g. multi-game in a row, basis), disciplined (passing or hopping for rebounds better consistently – e.g. multi-game in a row, basis), or smarter (moving off-ball any better). IMO he’s a high schooler who’s been playing against ACC basketball players for 11 games and sometimes gets used to it for a stretch or two during a game.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Feb 16, 2011 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, I'm glad I know your stance. Let me just summarize to make sure:
JTT does not look any better, and when he does look ok during stretches it is only because he is rising to the level of play in ACC every once in a while.
Would you say that he is inconsistent? Or not very good? Or that Coach Bzdelik is not developing him properly? Or all of the above?
Wake Forest '12
Mother So Dear
I think why this game doesn't seem so bad...
is because we were actually in the game late in the second half, especially considering we were only down 8 after being down 18. It’s nice to see that the players have pride and won’t roll over, even in a tough environment.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
