Murph
- Thread starter Drew1208
- Start date
JJ Reddick and his $100M career earnings disagrees with you.
i'd rather win 103-101 than lose 53-51.
No one ... absolutely NO ONE ... EVER SAID THIS.
Many have said that you don’t win if you give up more than you score.
It’s stunning how so many fail to grasp that concept. I actually hope it’s trolling at this point. I don’t wanna believe so many are that obtuse. Which may make me the fool.
Thinking Al McGuire. At least I can picture it coming from his mouth. Big fan of his way back.
He is going to spin this into a Micah Mason debate. Just watch.
Basketball is a team game and not everyone on the court needs to possess all the skills to be a great all around players . Pro football for example carry 2/3 tight ends , a great blocking one a great route runner and one who can do everything , bb teams can have guys that lack certain skills they just can’t all be playing at the same time !
To score in basketball, the ball needs to go in the hoop. You get 3 points if you can make shots from far away. If you have a player who is really good at making shots from far away, you put him on the court, make him guard the other team's worst offensive player and earn your $2 million in salary trying to devise a system where the other team's worst offensive player doesnt go for 30.
Both are team games not individual sports . You don’t need 5 great shooters , defenders , offensive , rebounding , ball handlers , rebounders you need the right mix .
I don't know what people are thinking. I dont know who WOULDN'T take a team of the following:
PG: quick as heck, can get into the lane and create but cant shoot (think Xavier Johnson)
SG: Lights out shooter but cant defend (think Parker Stewart)
SF: Defensive stopper, can score and shoot a little but nothing special (think Gilbert Brown)
PF: Stretch 4, can score inside and out. Can do a little of everything but not a star (think Levon Kendall)
C: Can defend and rebound at high levels but cant score (think Gary McGhee)
Ummmmm....by definition a good all around player would need to possess all the skills involved in any sport.
There’s trade offs everywhere , having a great rebounder or defensive specialist who can’t score is like playing 4 on 5 on offense , but at times they’re needed just like a great shooter . You need to have balance great defense without offense is no better than great offense with no defense . You don’t need 5 great of everything guys , that’s why it’s a team game . I’m not saying it wouldn’t be great to have every player excel at both ends of the court , but it’s just not essential to winning .
Ps ..in Fb most positions require multiple skills and teams are constantly shuttling different players in and out with different skill sets . There aren’t many all down players in the NFL .
Correct , but in my example of a tight end the all around guy might not be as good a blocker or have the speed to get downfield as well as the other guys . There are very few Gronks !
Someone who wants their team to win wouldn't be all that enamored of that team, because a team of Johnson, Stewart, Brown, Kendall and McGhee in the ACC would get squashed on a regular basis.
You can't seriously think that's a competitive ACC starting five, can you?
That team seems fine to me. Similar to the 2009-2010 Pitt team in a lot ways. And that was a tournament team
I’m not saying that players need to excel at everything either. But to be a player to count on for serious minutes, their net offense + defense has to be positive.
In the NBA, James Harden is known not to bother to play much if any defense. But he’s a completely elite offensive player so there isn’t any debate here.
But the player who started this whole debate was Parker Stewart who no one thinks is James Harden. He proved to be a pretty good deep shooter and a below average defender.
On both accounts, I won’t try to project how good (or bad) he was because the team he played on was so terrible that it’s almost impossible to know. One good example is wondering how good of a shooter he would have been against teams really trying to stop him. But since we were so bad, I doubt anyone was worried about stopping anyone on the Panthers that season.
Nor can I say honestly say how bad of a defender has was because the team as a whole was so inept defensively.
On the offensive end, my guess is that Parker was about as good as his 4-11 shooting from three in our ACC tournament game against Notre Dame.
For the record, I liked Parker, wish he would have stayed and think there could have been spots when he could have helped us.
But I also don’t think he’s a starter on a top half ACC team. In other words, he’s simply not good enough offensively to hide defensively as @Sean Miller Fan might suggest.
Let’s take Cam Johnson at UNC for an example. He was first team all-ACC last year while leading the league in 3pt shooting somewhere above 45%.
Parker Stewart would never approach what Johnson could do offensively, but there were still questions about Cams defense. And Johnson was a much better defender than Parker.
So again, I think there’s a role for a player like Parker in certain games and certain situations. But that role is limited on a really good team.
That is ... unless Parker became a better defender.
I might take this team ahead of the team we’ll put out this year but this team goes something like 7-13 in the ACC this coming year.
I was trying not to put this discussion back on PS , but In reality PS was the only Panther who you needed to pay attention to on the offensive end . Who else was going to hurt you ?
I think his range will make him more valuable with the new 3 pt line .
He also had the knack of being in the right place for rebounds .
Being a freshman on a horrible team isn’t the ideal situation for anyone . But the kid had a nice stroke .
I’m curious to see how he and Carr play this yr . Both would’ve helped last yr .
No one was valuable on the 17-18. It was that bad. But you make an interesting point about the extended three point line. We will have to see if there is a difference. I suspect Parker will do just fine at his new school and average 12-14 ppg this coming season.
Like I said ... I liked Parker. He did have a nice stroke and I think he would have had spots to help us. He was a good but not elite shooter.
But he’s nowhere close to worth the debate he’s caused here on this topic.
At this new school? Perhaps. But does that make him worth all the fuss you are making about him?
And anyway ... would this really be “lights out?”
Can y'all please get off of Stewart he's irrelevant and so is the conversation about him
He probably will not. He’s going to be a volume shooter that scores a lot of points, but I suspect his shooting percentages will be lower than they were at Pitt.
That's a team with one above average ACC player on it. They would have to get very lucky to come anywhere close to 7-13.
Last year’s team was 3-15 ACC regular season and then 1-1 in the ACCT to finish 4-16 in 20 ACC games. Going 7-13 means winning 3 more of 20. This years team should win more than 4 of 20 but whether they can get to 7 of 20 is still a question.
I remain optimistic that getting to 0.500 including OOC results is possible and that could require going 7-13 ACC regular season.
Not sure I agree. Xavier and Gil Brown, and to some extent Gary McGhee would be above average ACC players. But the two of us are kind of splitting hairs here. Regardless of whether that team would go 7-13 or 4-16 in the ACC, we are both in agreement AGAINST the idea of "who wouldn't take the team of the following."
Or perhaps I should say ... at least neither of the two of us would ... nor would any other person who wanted a team with a realistic chance for a team to get to the NCAA tournament.
As presently constituted next yrs team has a very slim chance of making the NCAAs , NIT yes , but no guarantee.
For Pitt to make the tourney next yr the returning players would have to really elevate their games and the incoming players would have to far exceed all expectations .
What about the following yr (20) , I personally believe unless X improves tremendously he’s still here , but if he does leave that could severely damage Pitts NCAAs dreams . JC would also need to add 2 impactful freshman if X stays and if he leaves 3 or a high quality grad transfer pg or 20 is off the board .
Realistically 20 is the first yr I think Pitt has a chance at the NCAAs if X stays , everyone gets better , plus JC needs to step up his recruiting otherwise it might be yr 4 or 5 depending on whether recruiting does pick up .
Having a senior like Gary McGhee and Gilbert Brown would go a long way in helping this core achieve the goal of making a post season tournament .
Pitt needs to follow the JD model of having experienced veteran teams beating up on more highly talented younger teams . It’s not till 21 that Pitt will have JC seniors and juniors and that’s when Pitt should make the tournament if things are in place for JC to be a long term successful coach at Pitt .
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Recruiting Update Transfer rundown: Top targets, weekend visits and more
- Latest: NotAnOaklandGuy
-
-
-
