Good points - we got away from what worked and started recruiting a bunch of guys 6-4 to 6-7 with the same skill set and body types.
Samson George commits
- Thread starter King Of All Message Boards
- Start date
Intriguing? Sure. But there wasn't any particular reason to think that it was likely to be a success. Turning a guy who is a decent at best ball handler as a three into a point guard is not normally going to work. It may very well have been the best choice available, but that doesn't mean it was a good choice.
And of course the other problem with playing guys out of position (even by necessity) is that your defensive matchups get all screwed up. Pitt played with a point guard who absolutely could not guard the opponent's point guard under any normal circumstances. You'd like to think that in some order your two guards can guard the other guy's two guards, either the one on the one and the two on the two or vice versa. When your point can't guard the opponent's one or two (if he's any good) then you set yourself up for all sorts of bad matchups. It's just like when you start a two guard who can't and won't shoot threes it screws up more than just the two position, because people can guard you differently and it makes it harder on the other guys. If you have the right roster you might be able to work around it, but we haven't had the right roster in a while now.
Jamie Dixon said on more than one occasion that that was where he thought the game was heading. And at least to this point he was pretty clearly wrong. And I don't see the game ever getting to that place. A decent big man will always have a place in college basketball. A good smaller point guard will always have a place in college basketball.
OK, I figured you could dig it up much quicker and easier than I could. Nonetheless, I still think it's generally legit.
BTW -- your ability to find other people's old posts is a little creepy!
I think our biggest problem defensively was the concept of switching 1 through 5 with a group of guys who would rather say .. "naa, you take him" ... instead of working hard to defend. That's not a knock on Stallings, but guys who just didn't want to defend. I mean, the number of times they left Kithcart to defend a post man in the lane was ridiculous.
OK, I figured you could dig it up much quicker and easier than I could. Nonetheless, I still think it's generally legit.
BTW -- your ability to find other people's old posts is a little creepy!
It is kind of like what C.Powell said: If you said it you own it. Sorry.
Sorry also that you seem to feel the need to diminish our recruits. and : How does Samson George go from being a player you felt we should not sign to become a player you expect to be our leading rebounder?
Trying not to be argumentative or creepy.
OK, I figured you could dig it up much quicker and easier than I could. Nonetheless, I still think it's generally legit.
BTW -- your ability to find other people's old posts is a little creepy!
Like the one where nobody felt we needed another point guard?
That is one of my favorites.
Last edited:
I have no problem owning what I say ... I just don't know how you are able recall and find other people's posts so quickly! I read this board quite often and I have a good memory and still have nothing on you!
In regards to George, let me put it this way, if he's NOT our leading rebounder, it would add to my belief that we SHOULDN'T have signed him. Fair enough? Regardless, my point to not signing him was not that this team this coming year can't use some help (of course they can). Instead I would have rather not signed him and see if Stallings can sign someone of a higher level next year.
I don't feel I am diminishing our recruits. I think I am assessing them appropriately.
Why do you seem to feel the need to overestimate our recruits?
I don't think I have over estimated our recruits:
I watched Carr play reported I was disappointed with his defense and outside shot that game(I can look it up) - I do feel he will be great advancing the ball
Thompson - I voiced concern about a point guard shooting less than 50% FTs (I can look it up
Frame - I expressed concern about his conditioning (you know the drill)
Brown - I expressed concern about his stiff movement
Peace - I defended attacks on him - allowed that in initial video he looked horrible - pointed out in second video he looked great - pointed out he played against Brewster, Putnam and IMG
Stevenson - saw him play once - looks like a well rounded player
Simons - described him as a reach - said if he actually gets here
Stewart - I see as a great late get - impressive offers - shot looks great on video - we need someone to score
Davis - know little about him - video I have seen looks good as a defender
George - I know where he was rated - I know where he signed - His video changed my impression - we have discussed that - I did wonder if questions on amateur status caused him to be under recruited
Boykins - know little about him - know where he signed - injury history - stats not the best - scholarship opens for 2018
Ellison - good bloodlines - signed by St.Johns - stats first 2 seasons not too bad - video looks decent
The only players I have come out really strongly about were Peace, Stewart and George.
I have said generally that I wish recruiting had been better, but I feel it is likely better than Dixon's recent years, because it would be hard not to be. We have seen those players play. We have seen some of those players leave. We have seen where they have ended up.
I have pointed out that despite current class distribution problems, I am happy we have changed our recruiting approach and are recruiting freshmen. Unfortunately, more movement will need to take place as we move to a more stabilized roster. Maybe then we can get back to the developmental formula that is our best chance for success in the ACC.
You have pointed out the number of consensus top 100 recruits Pitt has had over the years. Those numbers are not likely to increase. We can not win by out recruiting UNC, Duke, Louis, Syr, ND, NC St, FSU, Miami. etc. We need another tactic.
Last edited:
IMO if that is the case Stallings won't make it to years 4 or 5. To be kept (preventing an empty money hemorrhageing Peterson) he needs to stay roughly on track to make the following happen:
1. Win no fewer games in 2017-18 than he did this past season and have a strong class of mostly 4-stars signed this November.
2. Have an above 0.500 record in 2018-19 with another class of mostly 4-stars signed in
November 2018.
No Year 4 if he doesn't achieve 2.
3. Make the NCAAs in 2019-20.
No Year 5 if no NCAAs in 2019-20 unless he has been very close and has a top 10/15 recruiting class signed in November 2019.
Where is this new meme coming from? How on earth does anyone think this team can win as many games as last year's group of 4 senior starters including 2 all-conference scorers?
Yeah not sure what you are implying here. I certainly did not complain and bitch non stop about the basketball program the last 10 years if that is what you are insinuating. And for the fans that were never happy with what Dixon achieved, they are dopes as well and fall into this same category.
Winning 16 games, with expectations much lower for this season, should be met with happiness?
Of course it should not be met with happiness. But does every post, every thread have to be non stop negative? Someone posts something positive and posters immediately turn it into a piss and moan session.
And on the flip side, the current situation should also be met with a realistic view point. If you didn't see a rebuild coming (short of them hiring Coach K or Calipari) then you are delusional and have completely unrealistic expectations.
And that is not a defense of Stallings either because frankly he needs to start getting better kids on the recruiting trail if he ever has a chance to do anything above average here. His 17 class is ok. It is not great but not terrible either but lacks any high impact type kids. The 18 class needs to be much much much better and needs to include some high end talent that can contribute early. We'll see if that happens and honestly my expectations are that it won't but I am not going to bitch and moan in every thread possible.
In all likelihood the 18 class won't help until 2020.
Going to be a long haul.
Frankly there is no reason for optimism
Certainly won't argue that and think that time frame is very likely. Best case scenario is 19 in my opinion.
Chances are real good(almost 100%) this a multi year rebuild as Pitt no matter the coach typically doesn't get the high impact freshmen who can make immediate big time contributions.
In my opinion, best you can hope for is
-the 17 class plays a lot next year obviously taking their lumps and a few of them can use that to develop into decent to good players.
-the 18 class is much better and has a few kids that contribute as freshmen along with hopefully a few 17 kids developing into good players. Sprinkle in the 18 freshmen hopefully having a kid or two who can contribute immediately. The 18 season being another sub par type rebuilding season though most likely.
-19 season should start to show serious improvement especially in the W/L column. 17 kids would be juniors, 18 kids Sophmores, and hopefully have a strong 19 class as well.
Well, it's the situation they are in for a multitude of reasons that can't be changed now. The state of the program was not good. What quick fix or solution are you proposing?
I won't ignore reality with blind optimism, however I also won't relegate myself to being Eeyore.
It's not a meme, at least not for me anyway.
I am not saying that I "think" this team can win 4 ACC games. I don't think we will win more than 2, and see going 0-18 as a legit possibility.
But I have to say that I can at least appreciate those who are looking for reasons and places to have an optimistic outlook, even if I don't see it.
But if we can win 4 ACC games, and recruits such as Samson turn out to be more than I tend to think they will be, then I think someone such a @gary2 's outlook begins to look valid.
I remember writing a post here on the Lair back in the summer of 2010 quoting Randy Pausch, who implored people to be Tigger's and not Eeyore's.
So generally speaking, I agree. But this was back in 2010 when we knew we would enter the season in the Top 10 and there was a STILL a great deal of negativity about it from a large contingent on the board. In other words, I was trying to rally fans around getting excited about this team, but there was a great deal of pushback.
2010-2011 was a #1 seed season, so my Tigger excitement was worth it for me. But with the Butler ending, many thought being Eeyore was validated.
I do believe in regards to many of our recruits, I do believe that folks are hoping for some things that are not there.
And I surely still don't get it how I was often criticized for being "too positive" then by the "realists." It's hard now for me to understand how many of these same "realists" who then called me an "apologist," are saying folks such as myself are being too negative.
But I'll always try to remember the words of Randy Pausch.
This is absolutely not meant as a criticism, as I think that even your 'negativity' of late still provides some very salient points at the very least, but I think the answer to your question above is pretty obvious in that those who are criticizing you in the manner that you outline are doing so because they feel that you were taking an overly positive stance on our program while JD was here and now an overly negative stance since JD has left.
I didn't happen to agree with the above position during the season, as I think you remained as optimistic as one could reasonably expect during a tough year, however, I would agree that your tone has definitely been more negative this offseason and very defensive, in an almost intentionally indirect way, towards the past regime.
You're certainly entitled to your well earned and education opinion, however. And I don't think anyone doubts that you would like to be 100% wrong about most of your recruiting concerns...
Can't it be as simple that when things are going well it's fair to be positive in outlook and when things are poorly it's fair to recognize it and be negative in outlook???
Not sure why this basic concept eludes so many.
If you feel positive about our present state, frankly you're not being objective or rational.
Is it permissible to be positive about a piece of the program?
I am not only positive about the addition of Parker Stewart, I am elated. He is as good a late addition as we could have hoped for. He had impressive offers. Most importantly he fills a need. Make that two needs. We needed a scorer - check. We needed someone other than Carr to play the point - check.
Is it objective or rational to be positive about that?
Personally, I think it's great that you are elated about Stewart. I so much so wish I felt the same way. I think it's completely rational, but not nearly so objective.
I don't agree I was taking an "overly positive" stance when we were a top 10 program year after year. That was an appropriately positive stance. But there was still significant criticism of that level of positively.
Two years ago, I wrote a big long post about the problems Dixon was having with recruiting and was still called an apologist.
So despite what you think, I really don't give a crap about the old regime anymore. And I reject the notion that one who is concerned with our program at the moment only feels the way because they are part of a Dixon "circle jerk" (as someone called it).
I simply don't see recruiting improving much if any beyond where it was previously. Where I have some annnimosity (so to speak) is being asked to accept that it is when the evidence I see says that it is not.
Sure.
Likewise you have to be cognizant that plenty do not think he moves the needle or improves the projected outcome of this season.
Certainly PROVES nothing, but from the PG:
With his 10-player recruiting class has come a level of enthusiasm from Stallings that wasn’t always evident last season, something Lyke noticed when the coach spoke about incoming freshman guard Parker Stewart, who signed with the program earlier this month.
“When he describes him, he’s like ‘Heather, I love this kid. I cannot wait to coach him. I’m so glad he’s a part of our program,’ ” she recalled. “Coaches don’t say that if they don’t genuinely mean that. I think he’s really excited about the program he’s building.”
Is it permissible to be concerned about more than this season?
Thinking only about this season is the kind of thinking that caused this mess
Perhaps it's a multiple season concern?
That taking a lot of flyers and lottery tickets as the baseline , supported by marginal recruits as the headliners...
Means 4-5 years of poor results??
They are dependent variables. Because we know stallings isn't a high ceiling coach
DT - Your misgivings about Stewart are based on what ? His rivals, scout and 24/7 rankings? - Some reports that he lacks quickness? - Something else?
Let me rephrase.
You have said others have a higher opinion of Stewart than you do. Where does your opinion come from? What is it and what is it based on? I am not being argumentative. I am very interested in your answer.
He's an immediate replacement for Cam as a catch and shoot guy. Everything available points to the kid being a really good shooter. Playing point is a stretch in the near term, but no reason he can't come in and play 15-20 minutes a game and have him jack 3s off set plays. I'm more interested if he can play defense.
I'm not sure why anyone would not be happy to add this kid when they did. I'll take him over any player that transferred other than Cam. And Frankly, I think he's got more potential in his overall offensive game than Cam.
I would like another true point (a grad transf to replace Milligan). Absent that, Stewart (unfortunately) is the best (only) choice for a backup at the point.
Sorry, I did try to be clear that I didn't think you were 'overly positive' during the good days. That seems to be a label that you feel others put on you. I think most find you pretty objective, which is why your recent feelings on recruiting are so surprising. And I don't think many of us consider you a part of the 'circle jerk' crew...ha.
I'm happy with him as an add, but I do not believe he is close to being a replacement as Cam as a catch and shoot guy in the coming season. Perhaps in 2-3 years this might be closer to where Stewart ends up. After all, it took 3 years for Cam to become the player we now see. Even for most parts of his redshirt freshman year, Cam looked quite overmatched on the court, and I suspect this is what we will often see on the court during Stewart's freshman year.
I do not think he has Cam's potential because Cam's length in unique, and I think in most all other areas, Cam and Stewart are fairly equal. Actually, I believe Cam also has an edge on quickness and/or athleticism.
Similar threads
