ADVERTISEMENT

NC State ACC Tourney Game & Other Dribbles ...

DT_PITT

Lair Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2001
44,823
30,316
113
** Well, that wasn't very fun. So, I guess the best thing that can be said is that this game could have been worse. Much, much worse, really.

** After what looked like a really depressing first half where our men had packed it in, at least the second half effort proved this wasn't the case.

** That's not worth much, but it's something.

** And with that, once again we saw what we already know. We can play some offense, especially when we are hitting shots.

** But we are terrible defensively. Not bad. Terrible.

** We've played many bad defensive games this year. This might have been the worst.

** We already know we can't stay in front of dribble penetration. But during the year, the guys have looked like they have made a small amount of progress guarding ball screens or pick and rolls.

** None of that progress could be seen tonight. In fact, we we've probably gone in reverse in that area.

** With the way we were playing offense today, with any kind of defense at all, this contest could have found it's way to being a one or two possession game. It really could have.

** But because we are incapable of stringing together stops, the final result was absolutely never in doubt at any time. The truth is that we haven't been able to string together stops all year.

** After NC State scored the games' first basket, the Wolfpack did not score on four straight possessions. However, after that the Panthers were not able to able to string together more than two straight stops for the entire game. Not once. That's almost hard to believe.

** There's no doubt that NC State hit some tough shots. But all teams do. And they surely hit them against us when we let them get confident.

** What's interesting is that 10 years ago, even when we didn't defend a shot well, teams still seemed to miss then. Now it's always the opposite.

** We'll spend the entire off season trying to figure out why our defense was so bad, and if there is any real chance for it to get better next year.

** Only one decent thing can be taken from this game. When we started the ACC season against NC State, our offense was fairly inept. The progress we've made on that end of the court was fairly evident, in the second half of course.

** But our defense clearly has made no progress.

** Within the next week though, we can only hope we can get a draw with a team who can actually let us outscore them in the NIT.

** For the Panthers to get to another 20 win season this year, we will probably need to score 85 to come out victorious.


This post was edited on 3/11 9:43 PM by DT_PITT
 
I wouldn't make any kind of prediction ...

... until we see the opponent.

I feel confident we'll play some good offense. Maybe even enough to win. We just can't play against a team who scores easily.
 
Re: I wouldn't make any kind of prediction ...

There are too many teams who don't score easily normally but do against Pitt. I still can't get over what the 2 reserve guards from VTech did. But I agree with you DT more than likely a win will require a game where the offense just kills it and they win a track meet.
 
Re: I wouldn't make any kind of prediction ...



Originally posted by King Of All Message Boards:
There are too many teams who don't score easily normally but do against Pitt. I still can't get over what the 2 reserve guards from VTech did. But I agree with you DT more than likely a win will require a game where the offense just kills it and they win a track meet.
Well ... thanks a lot.

Bringing up that point about VTech is just freaking depressing.
 
Re: I wouldn't make any kind of prediction ...

Ha. I'm not into it quite as much as you DT but believe me I'm not feeling great about it right now either. And it's not the losing. Every team has down years. It's the way they're losing. I don't like dirty play but I think I'm longing for someone to pull a Fella and fling someone to the floor like he did with Thabeet. Too many easy baskets and there's no hesitation or fear to just keep attacking. It's sickening.
 
Re: I wouldn't make any kind of prediction ...

I hate to say it, but I think a 1st round loss might help in the long run. If that happens, then JD will definitely realize that changes need to be made. Sometimes the bottom needs to fall out before you fully realize adjustments must be made.
 
I think I posted this same thing last weekend but again......how can this team be that bad defensively? I am asking this not rhetorically. I am also not asking this in the realm of athletes, but just the simple question how can it be this bad. This consistency.

Effort?
Talent?
Playing out of position?
Help Defense?
Scheme and Tactics?


It is just off the charts bad.
 
Re: I wouldn't make any kind of prediction ...

Do you honestly think that Jamie thinks that this was a good team? really? reallllyyyy?
 
Re: I wouldn't make any kind of prediction ...


Originally posted by KiwiJeff:
Do you honestly think that Jamie thinks that this was a good team? really? reallllyyyy?

He recruited these players. Maybe he should wipe the dopey smile off his face and recruit some players.
 
I wish I knew.

Without a doubt though, I think it's all of these things you have mentioned, all least to some extent.

But let's look at Cam. I never thought Cam was the really good defender that he was sometimes reputed to be. But you can point to plenty of games last year when he could guard pretty well. Often, at least he could keep his man in front of him a better part of the time.

But in this game, it was like he wasn't defending at all. It's been that way for him all year really.
 
Defensive stats today ...

... 81 points ... most given up this year (tied with Indiana game).

81 points on 61 possessions, which is 1.328 points per possession. Worst of any game this year.

Also, for the year, NC State scores 1.09 point per possession.

Recruits called our defense "off the charts bad." If its not exactly that, then it means you are using a pretty big chart.
 
Even as just a casual observer of basketball, it looks like Pitt has a very big talent deficit that's mostly reflected in the defensive end of the floor. They're weak under the boards and very slow in getting in front of penetration. Maybe not having a legit 5 has made matters appear even worse...but it just doesn't seem like next year will be much better with the same players - at least in terms of defense.
 
Yesterday, I was showing my son some of the ...

.... Big East Tournament Game from 2002. It stuck me how we were undersized down low during that game too.

Donatas was 6-8, Chevy 6-7 and Lett was 6-6 (actually 6-4 1/2). But our guards just didn't let players get by them at will like this team does.

I was listening to Julius Page coming home tonight, and he said he thought he still could drive by our guards effectively. Then he made the joke the Chris Mueller could too. He backtracked a little as not to seem too disrespectful, but deep down I think he may have thought he really could.

Additionally, Julius also noted how we are undersized down low, and said "that really hurts us so much because of how we can't control the dribble."

I think that says it best.
 
When a player like Ben Gordon would score against page it was because of just great individual talent.
Like page blocking a thred, Gordon gathering and taking two steps back and firing again in the big east tournament.

This team makes everyone look like Ben Gordon.

Friggin shameful
 
Pitts formula for success has been with older ,stronger and more experience players than their opponents younger more athletically gifted players. This team with the junior and senior classes being as they are had to go with younger guys who just weren't good enough. Their not quick enough ,strong enough or experienced enough to beat better teams consistently. The experience the sophomores got will help next year,the Johnson's ,Nix and Wilson will help ,but I'm not sure how JD will address the backcourt issues. As much as I'd like to see a developmental big I'd rather see a 5 th year guard with quickness who can shoot and play defense.
 
Can you coach defense or is it just God given talent. If it is the former Jamie needs to look for changes in his staff. If the later just another problem with inability to get top notch talent. Given how dirty college BB us these days it may be impossible to run an honest program and compete because of the talent differential. Kentucky come on....we would probably lust for their 3rd level scrubs!
 
Re: Defensive stats today ...

Originally posted by DT_PITT:
... 81 points ... most given up this year (tied with Indiana game).

81 points on 61 possessions, which is 1.328 points per possession. Worst of any game this year.

Also, for the year, NC State scores 1.09 point per possession.

Recruits called our defense "off the charts bad." If its not exactly that, then it means you are using a pretty big chart.
I mean, the look out there in the NC State players eyes reminded a lot of the Lemieux era Penguins when they were playing a lesser opponent and they were looking at it as a feast for stats. That is what Lacey, Barber and the rest of the Wolfpack looked like last night.

I have completely divorced myself from any negative emotion on this basketball team this year by tempering expectations, but at some point I screamed in my best hoclkey fan voice "HIT SOMEONE" meaning, at least give a hard foul, make it a bit uncomfortable for NC State.

Like I said in another post. We got great kids, good students, truly a model for what college basketball SHOULD BE, but isn't. But....we don't have any toughness, we are soft, no leadership. Great kids. Not great players.
 
We already marked down your 16-16 prediction.

But I know you'll be hoping that we lose.
 
Re: I wouldn't make any kind of prediction ...


Originally posted by steel_curtain:

Originally posted by KiwiJeff:
Do you honestly think that Jamie thinks that this was a good team? really? reallllyyyy?

He recruited these players. Maybe he should wipe the dopey smile off his face and recruit some players.
This is just typical of our fan base....a real bottom the barrel type comment.

First off, Dixon has recruited plenty of fairly highly rated players recently. Robinson, Birch, Adams, Young, Taylor, and Gilbert were all top 100 guys.

Second off, Dixon moved to the types of guys many in the fan base wanted. Many warned, that if Dixon started going after offensive minded player, this could happen, simply because Pitt was never going to recruit on a level that would allow them to be that type of program.

Dixon needs to go back to his roots...hard nosed guys with a couple of top 100 guys sprinkled in.
 
Re: Yesterday, I was showing my son some of the ...

Here is the difference. Those guys were rugged inside. The guys we have now soft defensively, and more geared towards the offensive end.


Originally posted by DT_PITT:
.... Big East Tournament Game from 2002. It stuck me how we were undersized down low during that game too.

Donatas was 6-8, Chevy 6-7 and Lett was 6-6 (actually 6-4 1/2). But our guards just didn't let players get by them at will like this team does.

I was listening to Julius Page coming home tonight, and he said he thought he still could drive by our guards effectively. Then he made the joke the Chris Mueller could too. He backtracked a little as not to seem too disrespectful, but deep down I think he may have thought he really could.

Additionally, Julius also noted how we are undersized down low, and said "that really hurts us so much because of how we can't control the dribble."

I think that says it best.
I was listening to Julius Page coming home tonight, and he said he thought he still could drive by our guards effectively. Then he made the joke the Chris Mueller could too. He backtracked a little as not to seem too disrespectful, but deep down I think he may have thought he really could.

Additionally, Julius also noted how we are undersized down low, and said "that really hurts us so much because of how we can't control the dribble."

I think that says it best.
 
Originally posted by Az_Panther:
Can you coach defense or is it just God given talent.
Good question. The most basic principle in playing defense is to keep your man in front of you. We've all guarded people, whether it be in HS, intramurals, or pick-up games, that were simply too quick for us. We tried to keep them in front, but couldn't. Pitt has a lot of defensive problems but the fact that our guards don't possess the lateral quickness to keep their man in front of them, is the biggest problem.

Lateral quickness is the biggest problem and that's not something you can coach. Doing defensive slide drills isn't going to make somebody improve their lateral quickness. That'll help marginally, if any. There's just not much you can do.

The thing you can coach, to an extent, is effort and toughness. Guys like Jeter and Artis are bad defenders and although neither of them are laterally quick, they seem to lose focus on that end. They're not going to get quicker, but if they can focus a little more and give stronger effort, their D can improve.........marginally.

And obviously, we don't have the presence in the middle (Adams, McGhee, Gray) that intimidates people from trying to get into the lane. There is just no deterrent for any opposing player. He can beat his man easily and he won't be challenged at the rim. Its really a bad situation.

Solutions? I don't know but Jamie is in a tough spot. Does he trust himself enough to think he can miraculously get these players to become laterally quick? I think that is dangerous because he's tried everything he can and nothing came close to working. Or does he scrap everything he knows and install some type of junk defense like a 1-3-1? In doing that though, it'l be something they'll have to practice to no end in the summer sessoins and preseason camp. Its very tough to install that kind of defense and be effective. In football terms, its like switching from a 4-3 to a 3-3-5. You can't do it overnight. But considering that these players can't keep players in front of them, my opinion is we need to do something like a 1-3-1 next year but I think that is too big of a risk for Jamie to seriously consider. If we're going to lose, I think he'd rather lose with something he knows which is man to man.
 
Hit the nail right on the head

First, Underestimating the vocal portion of our fan base is difficult. Ignoring them is better.

UPitt129 is exactly right in his post. We reached for an upside of talent on too many guys and were left depleted when they didn't deliver and bolted.

We can hope the sophomores grow into tougher, smarter juniors and seniors but the reality may be that too many may not have the toughness gene in them.

We've got to claw our way back up the ladder, building with what worked before. The roster may need to be blown up, but late March is NOT the time to start that. There are simply not enough capable recruits left uncommitted to help us in this 2015 class.

The staff do need to take a hard look at the roster and determine who can help and who cannot. We need to get some wins in the 2016 class. Not necessarily home runs because swinging for the fences is what got us into this mess. We need some solid doubles. Sacrificing a guy or two off this roster to open more slots in '16 is probably the way to start.
 
Reply

You only get to take credit for recuiting top players to your program if they stay and play...and play well. Recruiting misses [or injuries/health problems] happen...and it is often what gets coaches fired. Whether Jamie changed his recruiting style or targets...I'm not sure if that is the case...or if so, why he did so? Are you suggesting he was listening to posters on the Lair? That Jamie has run a revolving door program of players and coaches...seems to be ignored largely. The number of kids and coaches that have come and gone [before their time]...is truly staggering. I hope Pitt can get back to playing tough, physical defense and winning...it will not be easy with the roster we have at the moment. Hail to Pitt!
 
I love the new narrative of those defending everything Jamie by this nasal whine "well.....you guys wanted him to recruit better players and now this is what you get" is just asinine. Blaming it on the fans again and not the coaches and players.

I can flip it and say blame it back on Jamie by saying "you worked miracles with Gary McGhee now you think you can take every hack Center that no top 25 program would touch and turn them into a defensive and rebounding fiend".

No...the answer is to not recruit worse players. Lower rated players. And again, we have stacked our best recruits at basically the same position. We still have yet to recruit good, quick guards or a decent post player.

Harve made this following comment and I find it interesting and also have an answer to this:

** What's interesting is that 10 years ago, even when we didn't defend a shot well, teams still seemed to miss then. Now it's always the opposite.

I think the answer is simple. We forced them to work hard, was physical that there was an intimidation factor that even when guys had open shots they were looking to get bumped and denied. Now, like I said, Lacey and Barber were literally giddy last night at the room they had. It was like they were playing a MEAC team.
 
Originally posted by recruitsreadtheseboards:

I love the new narrative of those defending everything Jamie by this nasal whine "well.....you guys wanted him to recruit better players and now this is what you get" is just asinine. Blaming it on the fans again and not the coaches and players.

I can flip it and say blame it back on Jamie by saying "you worked miracles with Gary McGhee now you think you can take every hack Center that no top 25 program would touch and turn them into a defensive and rebounding fiend".

No...the answer is to not recruit worse players. Lower rated players. And again, we have stacked our best recruits at basically the same position. We still have yet to recruit good, quick guards or a decent post player.

Harve made this following comment and I find it interesting and also have an answer to this:

** What's interesting is that 10 years ago, even when we didn't defend a shot well, teams still seemed to miss then. Now it's always the opposite.

I think the answer is simple. We forced them to work hard, was physical that there was an intimidation factor that even when guys had open shots they were looking to get bumped and denied. Now, like I said, Lacey and Barber were literally giddy last night at the room they had. It was like they were playing a MEAC team.
I'm really not reading that narrative except for the troll-trolls..who need to be ignored, same as the trolls do.

Recruiting success is ALWAYS about winning games.

I'm often accused of being a Dixon fanboy pom-pom waiving apologist....and I've spent the past 4-5 years BLASTING our defense as being a problem.

This year is just the pinnacle of bad scheme meets bad execution.
 
Sure as heck isn't may narrative.

We need to recruit players who can win games.

Period.

I've always said that. When we are winning games, I'd say he's recruiting well.

When we aren't winning games, I'd say he isn't.
 
I agree with this too ...

... I have some slight objections. For example, saying revolving door seems to indicate that we are the only program where players come and go. Actually, we are still less than average.

And I don't think that's been ignored at all.

But for a program that has relied so much on experience, it matters for sure.

For me, the bottom line has always been this ...

Jamie needs to get the players he needs to be successful. Stars don't matter. How long they stay doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not we are successful.

When he wins games, to me his recruiting can be termed as successful.

When the results are less so as they are now, his recruiting is more suspect.
 
Reply

I'll take you at your word that Pitt is less than average for player turnover...but wow, if that is the case...pretty bad. Are you comparing us to all basketball teams...or to top 30 type programs? I completely disagree with the concept that it does not matter how long they stay. Other than kids that go early to the NBA...if you are forcing kids out...it means you are NOT RECRUITING the kind of players you want or need. And other than Adams, I cannot remember a kid leaving early for the NBA under Dixon. So the kids that leave are not working out. If as you say, this is even more the case at top programs...I'd be certainly interested in knowing that. By the way, the NCAA is considering stopping this practice...so just throwing kids away that do not pan out may soon be a thing of the past. I also think the assistant coach merry-go-round has not helped the program...and is far more problematic under Jamie than under comparable top 30 programs. Not a good thing...and it needs to slow down. For what it is worth, I really regret buying ACC Tournament tickets this year...a real waste of time and money. Hail to Pitt!
 
Re: I agree with this too ...

Originally posted by DT_PITT:
... I have some slight objections. For example, saying revolving door seems to indicate that we are the only program where players come and go. Actually, we are still less than average.

And I don't think that's been ignored at all.

But for a program that has relied so much on experience, it matters for sure.

For me, the bottom line has always been this ...

Jamie needs to get the players he needs to be successful. Stars don't matter. How long they stay doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not we are successful.

When he wins games, to me his recruiting can be termed as successful.

When the results are less so as they are now, his recruiting is more suspect.
I'll give you an example of this conundrum. Chieck Diallo. STARS! 5 STARS!! TOP !0 RECRUIT!! Position of need! He is also most assuredly a "one and done". And anyone seeing him play, he is more raw than Steven Adams. So....what type of impact will he really have on this program?

I am just putting this out there, there are no easy answers. The goal is to win, and usually wins are brought on by better players. But more talented players who have yet to reach their potential are not much of an impact. Think of last year's team if Steve Adams had stayed one more year. I definitely think there would be an impact. But a lot of these raw kids, big men in particular, they have less of an effect than Gary McGhee did as a senior.

So again, it is a tough call. You can't stop not going after top talent but you also have to realize the net effects of these guys on your program. Where we have lacked is that NBA game ready kid to come here.
 
Re: I agree with this too ...

Originally posted by recruitsreadtheseboards:

I'll give you an example of this conundrum. Chieck Diallo. STARS! 5 STARS!! TOP !0 RECRUIT!! Position of need! He is also most assuredly a "one and done". And anyone seeing him play, he is more raw than Steven Adams. So....what type of impact will he really have on this program?
I have seen him play. Has anybody else? He is NOT more raw than Adams. He's much better at this stage. To give a comparison, he's Chris Taft as a frosh (11 and 8). Diallo = 4 extra wins at a minimum.
 
"...teams still seemed to miss..."

Actually, that was a DT line, not mine.

I agree with the gist of your argument on it. We AREN'T physical and intimidating any more.

However, without submitting myself to what would be a physically painful replay, I'd guess that on a significant portion of Lacey and Barber's treys, somebody WAS in their face. They made a ton of contested long shots. Barber WAS able to lose the defender whenever he drove.
 
Re: "...teams still seemed to miss..."


Originally posted by Harve74:
Actually, that was a DT line, not mine.

I agree with the gist of your argument on it. We AREN'T physical and intimidating any more.

However, without submitting myself to what would be a physically painful replay, I'd guess that on a significant portion of Lacey and Barber's treys, somebody WAS in their face. They made a ton of contested long shots. Barber WAS able to lose the defender whenever he drove.
In their face..maybe a couple shots.

More often than not they had clean looks, and our guys closed out too late after the shot was already about to leave...no disruption of the shot at all.


Our entire perimeter defensive philosophy seems to be "Hope they miss".
 
I didn't make my point clear ...

.... what I'm saying is that whether kids come or go, leave early, or whatever cannot be an excuse (to support your point, I suppose).

I would suggest that it is a problem for Dixon, because bringing along good players to become really good ones in time has been his foundation. If they leave, it works against him.

And yes, if you are forcing kids out, it would indicate that you are not recruiting who you need.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT