Some Saturday Night Thoughts on Pitt Hoops & Other Dribbles ...

[gary2]

I noted in my reply that he JP was not a shooter and did not say or imply that McGhee was a good offensive player. I have not said or am saying that is all about offense, though as the roster sits now, that will absolutely be an issue post Young/Artis. .

We are getting there with the post presence. The defense was better with him for the points you made, even though he was not a shot blocker because he was a true center who controlled the paint on defense. Teams didn't get away with inside picks, they didn't get position for rebounds and guards/wings knew if they drove to the basket that he was likely to put the wood to them.

Again - I repeat, YES the team gave too little effort on defense.

That was PART of it.

I don't care how much "effort" Jones puts into, you can put him on coke, pump him up with Red Bull, kidnap his dog and tell him its life depended on it, and he won't be able to cover a quality 2G.

Because he isn't a 2G. He does not have the "skill" to guard 2Gs.

No one on this team outside of maybe Smith does, because Smith is the only true SG on the team.

I just want to let you know that I agree with most of what you have said throughout this thread and most of what the last poster just wrote.

I would just like to add one point about effort on defense. I do not believe the players on last years team were a bunch of lazy slugs who had no interest in playing defense. Jamie would not allow that. We were young and inexperienced. We played basically 7 players and often wore down. Robinson and possibly Wright were hampered by injury. We had no one to defend the opponent's 2G or even a SF of better than average quickness. I believe we tried on defense but did not have the component parts to play at an even adequate level. Our problem was that player exodus and two years of very poor recruiting eventually caught up with us.

 

[Jeffburgh]

I just want to let you know that I agree with most of what you have said throughout this thread and most of what the last poster just wrote.

I would just like to add one point about effort on defense. I do not believe the players on last years team were a bunch of lazy slugs who had no interest in playing defense. Jamie would not allow that. We were young and inexperienced. We played basically 7 players and often wore down. Robinson and possibly Wright were hampered by injury. We had no one to defend the opponent's 2G or even a SF of better than average quickness. I believe we tried on defense but did not have the component parts to play at an even adequate level. Our problem was that player exodus and two years of very poor recruiting eventually caught up with us.

I think the team frayed more than most JD teams, you saw them fall apart a few times, like when JROB was visibly demonstrative on the court at the end of the first half of the Miami game, I think it was.

But, to your point, I would agree the team was not as "lazy" some of the caricatures in this string. Also, there is no doubt the defense suffered from a lack of experience, and JROB and Wright weren't GREAT defenders, but certainly did not defend as well last year as they had in the past, for health or whatever reasons.

But, as noted, overall, these players had physical and skill limits that simple left them unable to play defense against the guys they ended up matched up with.

 

[Harve74]

Three points:

SG - Julius Page was a shooting guard - the best defense this program has had against SGs was with him. Second best defense this program has had against shooting guards was Jermaine Dixon. Yes, he couldn't shoot, but otherwise he was physically and talent wise a shooting guard. Again, to my point. This program has been exposed to being torched by hot shooting SGs because they didn't have a SG to match up on them. It does not matter how "fundamental" he might be, if he works the team defensive concepts like einstein, there is NO ONE on this roster in 2017 who will be able to effectively play man defense on a shooting guard.

PG - again, you are trying to read into what I am saying. I don't care if it is an "ideal get to the hoop" PG or not, they don't have a PG on this roster starting in 2017 unless Wilson is. I liked Newkirk as much as anyone after his frosh season, and he might be able to rebound somewhat from his horrid sophomore year, but what last year showed in no uncertain terms is he is NOT a starting caliber D1 PG.

Bruising post players - Bruising power guys at 4 and 5 may or may not be "obsolete," but how has this worked out for JD? This program started to tail when he moved away from having bruising big men and toward more of a UConn type big man (I am not saying this is the ONLY reason, but it is most certainly a big factor). You will likely point to Zanna, and he certainly developed into a fine college big man, and they had their only modest burst of success over the last half decade his senior year. But, overall, this transition to "multiskilled" leaner big men has hurt the program. It really is not debatable, the record shows it.

UConn makes it work because they recruit top guys and also get super high end athletes. They block shots all over the place, jump all over the place on offense. JD just does not recruit the kind of QUALITY player like this that they do. So, instead of having a Chevy Troutman or Gary McGhee ripping heads off, he has the same type of big man as everyone else.

This defense thing spun out with an offhanded remark I made.

I was not saying it was the ONLY reason, the defense has spun out, but it certainly is part of it, particularly the man to man.

JDs straight man works a LOT better if you have a SG who can guard SGs, AND if you have some big men who can help to control the inside. McGhee wasn't sexy, but he grabbed rebounds and he kept the paint clear. It makes it a LOT easier to play defense if you have that big man sucking up defensive rebounds, keeping post players from setting picks to get guys to the basket, laying the wood on a guy who drives occasionally.

Again, I did not and am not saying having some multi-skilled/positional guys is a problem. I am saying this roster as of 2017 has no core positional guys to use those players to build around - a PG, a SG and either a for real center like a Blair or McGhee or a stud POWER forward to control the paint (I will say that there is a good chance that Young will be a real stud by then, and possibly a big man who can control things, but that will be for 2017 only ...)

Hey, I would go back to the old, bruising style players in a minute. But, very few frequent posters on here agree with that. I have an ongoing aregument with eyebugs where is contention is the game has changed and that style can't win today. I disagree, and B-Man has joined the discussion on my side.

Julius Page and Jermaine Dixon were both excellent athletes who were primarily defenders first. Neither of them were shooters. You want a shooting guard who does better than 43% overall and 33% from 3pt range. FWIW, Chris Jones has slightly better offensive numbers than Page and considerably better than Dixon.

As far as bigs, Artis and Young are the two highest scoring returning frontcourt players in the ACC. Young was in the top 10 in rebounding and about half of those above him left. He is already one of the best big players in the ACC and barring unforseen consequeces should contine to get better with more front court help.

Corey Manigault certainly seems like he will be in that category when he arrives next year. Nix is at least a big body there. Jeter has been bruiser on the boards at times. I agree Artis is not a strong physical PF but as long as he scores at the pace he did in the second half of the season, most teams would gladly accept his stats. He had more rebounds and points than Duke's starting PF, Amile Jefferson. Even without the 5th year transfers, the frontcourt compares well with all returnig ACC lineups. Maia and Odada and maybe Nix should provide adequate physical play in support of Young and whoever else gets minutes at 4. It's a matter of perspective of what our current gus actually did relative to the competition, not relative to the ideal. .

The backcourt positions are more of a problem than the front court to me. We don't have numbers at guard and the skill level doesn't match the front court. Robinson and Smith may be adequate this year but depth and future play will depend upon Newkirk and Damon Wilson, and ultimately on recruiting. Jones offensively matches Page's shooting percentages as I said, but is neither the athlete nor defender JP1 was. But, ultimately we need Artis and/or Jeter to prove they can perform adequately as ACC SF's. If not, Jones or Cam Johnson would be necessary to step in at 3 and that would take options away from the 2.

Ultimately, adding 9 or 10 new players in the 2016 and 2017 classes will transform the current roster to something completely different. Those classes will determine the future of Pitt basketball and probablyorbaby Jamie Dixon .

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Actually, given the history of Pitt basketball, a truly reasonable answer to that question would be "Yes, gladly".

Mediocre would be outstanding compared to pretty much anyone since Doc Carlson, minus a somewhat fluke season under Ridl. The only seasons better than medicore were when we were buying players under Chipman and Evans and tat's not happennng anymore here.

I do aspire to be more than mediocre, but a program that is above .500 and goes to the NCAAT half the time and while playing in one of the best conferences IS more than mediocre and is not really likely to get a coach fired. Now, if we crash and burn like Agnus somehow did, that's different.

Oh here we go. Dude, you can't be afraid of change. And again, I am not advocating firing him. Not at all. None. No matter how much you fukwads are trying to twist words. I was merely posing a hypothetical in response to another poster. And I love the comments about hypotheticals by the board savant Jeff, it is a message board, that is what we do. This ain't exactly CBS News here.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I think we need to get a PG, a scorer and probably another guy with length, although a quick defender wouldn't bother me either.

Any of Charlie Moore, the Simpson kid from Lima who was just offered or Tony Carr would be good gets but I'm not sure any are attainable. There's a Playaz kid who is Top 150 who might be. I can't recall his name right now.

Not sure who we get as a scorer. Lamar Stevens would be nice but he's not a shooter. Tervel Beck was considered likely but we may have backed off him. Both may be more small 4's than 2/3 guys. We've offered a number of scorers but few have shown much interest. Could be a combo guy who can play defense. If the PG were to be Moore or Simpson, both of them could fill up the scoresheet too. And the Playaz kid supposedly can shoot too. We MIGHT just take two guards and two bigs. Cam Johnson and Damon Wilson have length and athleticism to give good minutes at wing.

There are several guys at 4/5 who could slip in. Konate is athletic but raw. The Painter kid has improved and the Marfo kid has just popped up after reclassifying. There's another big Kiwi who is looking to play at a prep school too and has some interest here too. He's under the radar.

After Young, Artis and Jeter move on, the only 4 left is Luther. I'm assuming we'll mainly play 4/5's as we have recently so Manigault and any other of the guys I just mentioned could share the 4/5 in '17/'18, even if they redshirt in .'16/'17 so a developmental big wouldn't bother me.

It will REALLY take the 6-man 2017 class to balance things. The '16 class just needs to add some building blocks.

We need a Doc Hennon, and perhaps a Bob Cousy type or a George Mikan. I remember when those baskets were made from real peach baskets. Those were the days. I never though iron rims and nets would work. Then again, I think this fancy nancy zone defenses, and three point shooting take away from the purity of the game. And don't get me on the slam dunk. James (Naismith) was right.

 

[KiwiJeff]

Oh here we go. Dude, you can't be afraid of change. And again, I am not advocating firing him. Not at all. None. No matter how much you fukwads are trying to twist words. I was merely posing a hypothetical in response to another poster. And I love the comments about hypotheticals by the board savant Jeff, it is a message board, that is what we do. This ain't exactly CBS News here.

Hypothetically, it is possible you may actually make a salient point someday. You mean like that?

 

[Jeffburgh]

Hey, I would go back to the old, bruising style players in a minute. But, very few frequent posters on here agree with that. I have an ongoing aregument with eyebugs where is contention is the game has changed and that style can't win today. I disagree, and B-Man has joined the discussion on my side.

Julius Page and Jermaine Dixon were both excellent athletes who were primarily defenders first. Neither of them were shooters. You want a shooting guard who does better than 43% overall and 33% from 3pt range. FWIW, Chris Jones has slightly better offensive numbers than Page and considerably better than Dixon.

As far as bigs, Artis and Young are the two highest scoring returning frontcourt players in the ACC. Young was in the top 10 in rebounding and about half of those above him left. He is already one of the best big players in the ACC and barring unforseen consequeces should contine to get better with more front court help.

Corey Manigault certainly seems like he will be in that category when he arrives next year. Nix is at least a big body there. Jeter has been bruiser on the boards at times. I agree Artis is not a strong physical PF but as long as he scores at the pace he did in the second half of the season, most teams would gladly accept his stats. He had more rebounds and points than Duke's starting PF, Amile Jefferson. Even without the 5th year transfers, the frontcourt compares well with all returnig ACC lineups. Maia and Odada and maybe Nix should provide adequate physical play in support of Young and whoever else gets minutes at 4. It's a matter of perspective of what our current gus actually did relative to the competition, not relative to the ideal. .

The backcourt positions are more of a problem than the front court to me. We don't have numbers at guard and the skill level doesn't match the front court. Robinson and Smith may be adequate this year but depth and future play will depend upon Newkirk and Damon Wilson, and ultimately on recruiting. Jones offensively matches Page's shooting percentages as I said, but is neither the athlete nor defender JP1 was. But, ultimately we need Artis and/or Jeter to prove they can perform adequately as ACC SF's. If not, Jones or Cam Johnson would be necessary to step in at 3 and that would take options away from the 2.

Ultimately, adding 9 or 10 new players in the 2016 and 2017 classes will transform the current roster to something completely different. Those classes will determine the future of Pitt basketball and probablyorbaby Jamie Dixon .

* I saw the transition in his big man recruiting, was skeptical, but gave him the benefit of the doubt given how great things were going to that point. I think he saw the UConn big guys and wanted to be like that. But, that works for them because they get a LOT of big time athletes in their big men, highly rated guys and even their average rated big men as high end athletes. JD just isn't going after or getting the quality/quantity of that kind of big man. Birch was a UConn type big man, Zanna a bit as a developmental guy. Young fits that mold a bit. Bad break with Birch going mental, but overall not near enough to overwhelm teams with blocked shots and athleticism like they do.

So, JD has the same big men everyone else does for the most part. AND, along the way a big part of why the team and program has lost is identity. JD just is not going to recruit studs in mass to differentiate based on sheer talent. What made the program unique was the physicalness, they recruited to it and it was what everything extended from. Minus having the talent edge, they are just like everyone else now.

* Side note to Page, he had actually developed into a solid three point and FT shooting by his junior year. He just completely lost it his senior season.

* That said, I conceded in talking about them that Page and Dixon could not shoot/were not scorers. But, even with that, they were two guards. They weren't some 1/2 or 2/3 hybrid, they were recruited as 2Gs and played 2G 99%of the time. They were built like 2Gs and had the requisite quickness and length to actually guard a 2G. That is the point.

* Agree completely on the backcourt being a bigger issue at this time because they have ONE guard, ONE, rostered/signed past this upcoming season, Wilson, who is a project as a D1 PG, and possibly yet another half and half guy.

This is part of my point about all the half/halves ... They have almost all half 2G/SFs, SF/PFs, no center, no point guard (again, while I am skeptical, I am not ruling Wilson out) and no shooting guards at this point for the opening tip of 2016-17.

* Agree completely that this and the next recruiting classes are likely make or break for JD ...

 

[thebadby2]

Hey, I would go back to the old, bruising style players in a minute. But, very few frequent posters on here agree with that. I have an ongoing aregument with eyebugs where is contention is the game has changed and that style can't win today. I disagree, and B-Man has joined the discussion on my side.

Julius Page and Jermaine Dixon were both excellent athletes who were primarily defenders first. Neither of them were shooters. You want a shooting guard who does better than 43% overall and 33% from 3pt range. FWIW, Chris Jones has slightly better offensive numbers than Page and considerably better than Dixon.

As far as bigs, Artis and Young are the two highest scoring returning frontcourt players in the ACC. Young was in the top 10 in rebounding and about half of those above him left. He is already one of the best big players in the ACC and barring unforseen consequeces should contine to get better with more front court help.

Corey Manigault certainly seems like he will be in that category when he arrives next year. Nix is at least a big body there. Jeter has been bruiser on the boards at times. I agree Artis is not a strong physical PF but as long as he scores at the pace he did in the second half of the season, most teams would gladly accept his stats. He had more rebounds and points than Duke's starting PF, Amile Jefferson. Even without the 5th year transfers, the frontcourt compares well with all returnig ACC lineups. Maia and Odada and maybe Nix should provide adequate physical play in support of Young and whoever else gets minutes at 4. It's a matter of perspective of what our current gus actually did relative to the competition, not relative to the ideal. .

The backcourt positions are more of a problem than the front court to me. We don't have numbers at guard and the skill level doesn't match the front court. Robinson and Smith may be adequate this year but depth and future play will depend upon Newkirk and Damon Wilson, and ultimately on recruiting. Jones offensively matches Page's shooting percentages as I said, but is neither the athlete nor defender JP1 was. But, ultimately we need Artis and/or Jeter to prove they can perform adequately as ACC SF's. If not, Jones or Cam Johnson would be necessary to step in at 3 and that would take options away from the 2.

Ultimately, adding 9 or 10 new players in the 2016 and 2017 classes will transform the current roster to something completely different. Those classes will determine the future of Pitt basketball and probablyorbaby Jamie Dixon .

"He had more rebounds and points than Duke's starting PF, Amile Jefferson"

Come on now Harve, that's apples and oranges. AJ played on a team LOADED with all-world scoring talent, and he was a true 4--his primary job was to defend and rebound, so the scorers could do their thing. He was Duke's 5th option most of the time and played only 21 mins/game. Artis was our #1 guy, played a full 10 mpg more than AJ, and averaged the same number of rebounds.

Artis is no 4 man, he played there last year out of necessity. Now we have a couple of bigs coming in that will allow him to play where he belongs at the 3. I think he'll do fine there at the offensive end, not sure about the defensive end--but he was a poor defender at the 4 as well. At least this year he should have some help when he gets beat; hopefully our new bigs can at least help contest dribble drives to the rim which will allow Artis to focus on defending his man away from the basket.

As for Page,I have always had a soft spot for him. I agree he was not an ideal scoring guard as he was a streaky, erratic shooter. But he was a really good 2 for us--as you said he was a tremendous athlete and a lockdown defender--and unlike most of the guys we've had playing that spot since, he could get to the rim and finish on the break, and in high style. Just ask Boumtje.

That;s another weakness with the last few teams we've had--we don;t get many runouts, and when we do, we have an unnatural amount of trouble finishing them. That comes from not having good, athletic guards. It's a lot easier to score in transition than out of a half court set, and we leave a lot of points on the table by not being able to run a fast break.

While I think Cam Wright was a good kid, I will not miss watching him in the fast break. He might has well have been a power forward the way he handled the ball in transition.

 

[Harve74]

* I saw the transition in his big man recruiting, was skeptical, but gave him the benefit of the doubt given how great things were going to that point. I think he saw the UConn big guys and wanted to be like that. But, that works for them because they get a LOT of big time athletes in their big men, highly rated guys and even their average rated big men as high end athletes. JD just isn't going after or getting the quality/quantity of that kind of big man. Birch was a UConn type big man, Zanna a bit as a developmental guy. Young fits that mold a bit. Bad break with Birch going mental, but overall not near enough to overwhelm teams with blocked shots and athleticism like they do.

So, JD has the same big men everyone else does for the most part. AND, along the way a big part of why the team and program has lost is identity. JD just is not going to recruit studs in mass to differentiate based on sheer talent. What made the program unique was the physicalness, they recruited to it and it was what everything extended from. Minus having the talent edge, they are just like everyone else now.

* Side note to Page, he had actually developed into a solid three point and FT shooting by his junior year. He just completely lost it his senior season.

* That said, I conceded in talking about them that Page and Dixon could not shoot/were not scorers. But, even with that, they were two guards. They weren't some 1/2 or 2/3 hybrid, they were recruited as 2Gs and played 2G 99%of the time. They were built like 2Gs and had the requisite quickness and length to actually guard a 2G. That is the point.

* Agree completely on the backcourt being a bigger issue at this time because they have ONE guard, ONE, rostered/signed past this upcoming season, Wilson, who is a project as a D1 PG, and possibly yet another half and half guy.

This is part of my point about all the half/halves ... They have almost all half 2G/SFs, SF/PFs, no center, no point guard (again, while I am skeptical, I am not ruling Wilson out) and no shooting guards at this point for the opening tip of 2016-17.

* Agree completely that this and the next recruiting classes are likely make or break for JD ...

Julius Page while listed at 6-3 was actually closer to 6-1. Dixon said last year Chris Jones was our best perimeter defender. (Talk sbout damnng with faint praise.)

Our problem isn't that we had multiple position players. Our problem is thag modt of those players couldn't or woudn't bother to play defense. Jeter and Artis frequently were defending either the wrong man or nobody - even when in Zone. Dino Gaudio railed against how we defended a simple pick and roll every time he called one of our games. DT also called it exactly right when he passed along word from somebody close to the program that too many guys just were more interested in scoring than playing defense.

And, to be fair, some guys just can't defend. Newkirk is the quickest guy on the team. JJ Moore was tge bes athlete. John Johnson was quick. None of them could defend a statue. Johnson and Hewkirk were never short of effort. They just ALWAYS get caught leaning the wrong way. One fake and they are lost.

To Badby, critiques of our players relative to other teams' players generally lack perspective. Yeah, Jefferson was surrounded by other good players, but he was a high 4-star and started at 5 and at 4 for Duke. Yet a player for us who was the same size and had better numbers is not considered sufficient by our posters. I'm NOT saying Young or Artis are better or have higher potential than Amile Jefferson, but it is black and white fact that they were more productive.

 

[Jeffburgh]

Julius Page while listed at 6-3 was actually closer to 6-1. Dixon said last year Chris Jones was our best perimeter defender. (Talk sbout damnng with faint praise.)

Our problem isn't that we had multiple position players. Our problem is thag modt of those players couldn't or woudn't bother to play defense. Jeter and Artis frequently were defending either the wrong man or nobody - even when in Zone. Dino Gaudio railed against how we defended a simple pick and roll every time he called one of our games. DT also called it exactly right when he passed along word from somebody close to the program that too many guys just were more interested in scoring than playing defense.

And, to be fair, some guys just can't defend. Newkirk is the quickest guy on the team. JJ Moore was tge bes athlete. John Johnson was quick. None of them could defend a statue. Johnson and Hewkirk were never short of effort. They just ALWAYS get caught leaning the wrong way. One fake and they are lost.

To Badby, critiques of our players relative to other teams' players generally lack perspective. Yeah, Jefferson was surrounded by other good players, but he was a high 4-star and started at 5 and at 4 for Duke. Yet a player for us who was the same size and had better numbers is not considered sufficient by our posters. I'm NOT saying Young or Artis are better or have higher potential than Amile Jefferson, but it is black and white fact that they were more productive.

OK, time to punt on this.

In nearly every post in this mess I have stated that it goes without saying that the overall team defense was deficient, and that the "multi-position" thing is not ALL of it.

That gets lost in the mindset of completely dismissing it ...

.

 

[thebadby2]

Julius Page while listed at 6-3 was actually closer to 6-1. Dixon said last year Chris Jones was our best perimeter defender. (Talk sbout damnng with faint praise.)

Our problem isn't that we had multiple position players. Our problem is thag modt of those players couldn't or woudn't bother to play defense. Jeter and Artis frequently were defending either the wrong man or nobody - even when in Zone. Dino Gaudio railed against how we defended a simple pick and roll every time he called one of our games. DT also called it exactly right when he passed along word from somebody close to the program that too many guys just were more interested in scoring than playing defense.

And, to be fair, some guys just can't defend. Newkirk is the quickest guy on the team. JJ Moore was tge bes athlete. John Johnson was quick. None of them could defend a statue. Johnson and Hewkirk were never short of effort. They just ALWAYS get caught leaning the wrong way. One fake and they are lost.

To Badby, critiques of our players relative to other teams' players generally lack perspective. Yeah, Jefferson was surrounded by other good players, but he was a high 4-star and started at 5 and at 4 for Duke. Yet a player for us who was the same size and had better numbers is not considered sufficient by our posters. I'm NOT saying Young or Artis are better or have higher potential than Amile Jefferson, but it is black and white fact that they were more productive.

It's also black and white that Jefferson's productivity was limited by the fact that he was surrounded with future NBA scorers. If Jefferson played at Pitt, he'd very likely be at least as productive as Mike Young. I'm not one of the Artis detractors at all--but he's no 4 man. If I had to pick a 4 man right now between Jefferson and Artis, I would pick Jefferson 100% of the time. They aren't the same size, Jefferson is basically the exact same size as our 5 man, Young. Young and Jefferson are very similar players in fact. Artis is a scorer. He's a finesse player and has little business in the painted area. He didn't come to Pitt to play the 4, he wasn't recruited to fill that spot. He was there last year because we had nowhere else to put him given our available personnel. I've seen Sam Young cited as an example of how we can have an undersized scorer at the 4 and be successful. Well, Artis ain't no Sam Young, he's nowhere near as strong and athletic, and this Pitt team doesn't have the dominant post presence we had when Sam played. Artis is good--his defense is lacking but he can score for sure. I like him plenty as a player, he's a confident scorer with skills, but i don't like him as a player we have to rely on for rebounding and post defense.

 

[gary2]

Julius Page while listed at 6-3 was actually closer to 6-1. Dixon said last year Chris Jones was our best perimeter defender. (Talk sbout damnng with faint praise.)

Our problem isn't that we had multiple position players. Our problem is thag modt of those players couldn't or woudn't bother to play defense. Jeter and Artis frequently were defending either the wrong man or nobody - even when in Zone. Dino Gaudio railed against how we defended a simple pick and roll every time he called one of our games. DT also called it exactly right when he passed along word from somebody close to the program that too many guys just were more interested in scoring than playing defense.

And, to be fair, some guys just can't defend. Newkirk is the quickest guy on the team. JJ Moore was tge bes athlete. John Johnson was quick. None of them could defend a statue. Johnson and Hewkirk were never short of effort. They just ALWAYS get caught leaning the wrong way. One fake and they are lost.

To Badby, critiques of our players relative to other teams' players generally lack perspective. Yeah, Jefferson was surrounded by other good players, but he was a high 4-star and started at 5 and at 4 for Duke. Yet a player for us who was the same size and had better numbers is not considered sufficient by our posters. I'm NOT saying Young or Artis are better or have higher potential than Amile Jefferson, but it is black and white fact that they were more productive.

Some questions concerning defense:

If defense is mostly about effort, are our players not giving effort? Was Jamie forced to put up with that due lack of depth? Will that change this year?

I am sure Jamie and his staff teach the fundamentals of defense. Are our players too dumb to comprehend them or do they just choose to ignore them? I can not believe either is true.

In Jamie's interview with the Pitt News he blamed inexperience, lack of depth and injury for Pitt's poor defense last season and I tend to agree, but I would not dismiss Jeff's point about apples trying to be oranges. C.Wright, C.Jones and C.Johnson do not have the quickness to cover most 2Gs. That is a fact. J.Robinson does not have the quickness to cover some PGs, Dribble penetration is what breaks down defenses. Once dribble penetration occurs, more often than not a layup or dunk is the result.

I think our defense would improve with better positional roster distribution. It is hard to argue that we have not had many more players that fit at small forward than anywhere else.

 

[Scruffy the Panther]

I'm not sure why people downplay Cam's athleticism so much. I always thought he was a plus athlete, good enough to cover most 2 guards, though he might have lost a step after his injury. I mostly agree with Chris Jones on athleticism, but I don't think he's a poor athlete either. I honestly don't know enough about Cam Johnson to say one way or another. I certainly don't think it's a "fact" that they aren't quick enough to be good defenders at the 2.

 

[Harve74]

I'm not sure why people downplay Cam's athleticism so much. I always thought he was a plus athlete, good enough to cover most 2 guards, though he might have lost a step after his injury. I mostly agree with Chris Jones on athleticism, but I don't think he's a poor athlete either. I honestly don't know enough about Cam Johnson to say one way or another. I certainly don't think it's a "fact" that they aren't quick enough to be good defenders at the 2.

Well, given Josh, John Hohnson and JJ Moore, it's clearly not just quickness.

I would agree JRob's issue is probably quickness although he defended several future NBA guards competently as a true frosh. I know he had hamstring and/or groin issues asc sophomore d I suspect he never regained the step he lost. Both Cam Wright snd Jermaine Dixon suffered a broken foot before their senior year's and their defense ( and shooting) fell off. For some reason, Wright has always been a whipping boy on here. He was a plus defender until the Sr year injury. On a stronger roster, Wright would have been a 6th man, energy type guy, not a starting SG. His overall statistics are not that much different from Brad Wanamaker's, yet he s widely panned here.

Badby, as I said, I'm not saying Artis is better than Jefferson at 4 or Young was better than Jefferson at 5. Certainly I'm not saying Artis is a natural 4 or Young a natural 5. Or that Jefferson is a natural 4 or 5 either. Artis was recruited as a wing. As I've said, I've heard the staff was surprised when he came in almost 2 inches taller than expected. I never expected him to be a 4 and we really have to be pleased that a relatively lightly recruited guy has been so productive.

The point I keep trying to make is the actual production we got from those guys , playing out of position or not, was BETTER than blue-blood Duke got from a #36 overall, high 4 star in the same years.

 

[gary2]

Well, given Josh, John Hohnson and JJ Moore, it's clearly not just quickness.

I would agree JRob's issue is probably quickness although he defended several future NBA guards competently as a true frosh. I know he had hamstring and/or groin issues asc sophomore d I suspect he never regained the step he lost. Both Cam Wright snd Jermaine Dixon suffered a broken foot before their senior year's and their defense ( and shooting) fell off. For some reason, Wright has always been a whipping boy on here. He was a plus defender until the Sr year injury. On a stronger roster, Wright would have been a 6th man, energy type guy, not a starting SG. His overall statistics are not that much different from Brad Wanamaker's, yet he s widely panned here.

Badby, as I said, I'm not saying Artis is better than Jefferson at 4 or Young was better than Jefferson at 5. Certainly I'm not saying Artis is a natural 4 or Young a natural 5. Or that Jefferson is a natural 4 or 5 either. Artis was recruited as a wing. As I've said, I've heard the staff was surprised when he came in almost 2 inches taller than expected. I never expected him to be a 4 and we really have to be pleased that a relatively lightly recruited guy has been so productive.

The point I keep trying to make is the actual production we got from those guys , playing out of position or not, was BETTER than blue-blood Duke got from a #36 overall, high 4 star in the same years.

If Newkirk, John Johnson and JJ Moore's problem on defense was not quickness, what was it? You have already said with Josh and John it was not effort. Could they not be taught fundamental defense? Were they poor students or did they just resist teaching, needing to play the way they had to play? Could they have been plus defenders under a coach playing a different style of defense? If that is the case, maybe they should not have been recruited.

It seems to me that Jamie's style of defense is to attempt to just not break down - keep your man in front of you - force a bad shot late in the shot clock - get the rebound. (Didn't we use to exert more pressure in the half court, play the passing lanes harder and at least try to create some turnovers?)

T.J. McConnell is considered a plus defender. Maybe he would not be playing for a Jamie like coach. McConnell gambles all over the floor looking for steals. Maybe Josh and John Johnson could have been plus defenders playing a more aggressive defense. If you are a small defender (as all of these players are) you are at a disadvantage if you let a bigger player shot over you, back you down or muscle past you into the lane.

If you are going to recruit these type of players it is counter productive to not allow them to use their quickness. It would be better to not recruit them at all.

 

[Harve74]

If Newkirk, John Johnson and JJ Moore's problem on defense was not quickness, what was it? You have already said with Josh and John it was not effort. Could they not be taught fundamental defense? Were they poor students or did they just resist teaching, needing to play the way they had to play? Could they have been plus defenders under a coach playing a different style of defense? If that is the case, maybe they should not have been recruited.

It seems to me that Jamie's style of defense is to attempt to just not break down - keep your man in front of you - force a bad shot late in the shot clock - get the rebound.

T.J. McConnell is considered a plus defender. Maybe he would not be playing for a Jamie like coach. McConnell gambles all over the floor looking for steals. Maybe Josh and John Johnson could have been plus defenders playing a more aggressive defense. If you are a small defender (as all of these players are) you are at a disadvantage if you let a bigger player shot over you, back you down or muscle past you into the lane.

If you are going to recruit these type of players it is counter productive to not allow them to use their quickness. It would be better to not recruit them at all.

If I knew why athletes like Johnson and Newkirk were so horrible defensively, I'd be making money coaching, not posting on message boards.

I suspect with Josh, it might have to do with too much quick twitch reaction. He seems to over-react to every twtch the offensive player makes and ALWAYS finds himself leaning the wrong way. Maybe his reactions are just too fast. Or he's TOO keyed up. He just seems to run himself out if plays.

John Johnson simply seened unable to play defense with his feet. He aways seemed that his first reaction when his man made a move was to grab him. That's fine on the playground but the NCAA frowns on it.

Actually, at Greentree, that is EXACTLY what TJ McCnnell did when trying to guard Ashton Gibbs. But TJ was smart enugh not to do that in real games. I do think you are correct that Dixon would not have let TJ gamble for steals as much. Wanamaker was always playing the passing lanes trying for steals in high school and Jamie reined him in.

Jamie's defense tres to defend the shot rather than prevent the shot, mostly. But, this aporoach has akways given up sme dribble penetration. He used to use that guard a man and a half defense, where evrrybdy spent a lot of time sagging and helping on guys who posted up. Now, very few guys post. Everybody uses a high ball screen.

I really don't think Jamie misuses quick defeders. I just think the particular guys I mentioned were just NOT good defenders. In our defense, one of the two bigger guys who are not hedging have to rotate back to pick up whoever is diving to the hoop. They pretty much have to start to move at least when the opponent does. If they lose concentration or mss a step, it's a layup or a foul shot.

We gave up a lot of easy drives last year. Jeter and Artis got caught looking the wrong way often. Young played that role helping Talib a lot better than Sheldon or Jamel helped Mike.

 

[thebadby2]

Well, given Josh, John Hohnson and JJ Moore, it's clearly not just quickness.

I would agree JRob's issue is probably quickness although he defended several future NBA guards competently as a true frosh. I know he had hamstring and/or groin issues asc sophomore d I suspect he never regained the step he lost. Both Cam Wright snd Jermaine Dixon suffered a broken foot before their senior year's and their defense ( and shooting) fell off. For some reason, Wright has always been a whipping boy on here. He was a plus defender until the Sr year injury. On a stronger roster, Wright would have been a 6th man, energy type guy, not a starting SG. His overall statistics are not that much different from Brad Wanamaker's, yet he s widely panned here.

Badby, as I said, I'm not saying Artis is better than Jefferson at 4 or Young was better than Jefferson at 5. Certainly I'm not saying Artis is a natural 4 or Young a natural 5. Or that Jefferson is a natural 4 or 5 either. Artis was recruited as a wing. As I've said, I've heard the staff was surprised when he came in almost 2 inches taller than expected. I never expected him to be a 4 and we really have to be pleased that a relatively lightly recruited guy has been so productive.

The point I keep trying to make is the actual production we got from those guys , playing out of position or not, was BETTER than blue-blood Duke got from a #36 overall, high 4 star in the same years.

Cam was a decent defender before his injury. And that's the end of the story line on him. As I've said many times, he had a 4 man's skill set and a 2 guard's body. He was athletic but lacked basic guard skills. He was uncomfortable with the ball and it showed. He butchered many a transition opportunity. I read many times on this board how good of a midrange shooter he was. To the extent that's true, and I think it's more that it's just another way of saying he can't shoot, the midrange shot from a guard is not a major part of anyone's offense anymore.

Just not much of a player IMO. He would have struggled in the MAC, let alone the ACC or BE.

 

[gary2]

Disregard

 

[Harve74]

Re:Wright:
Statistics don't support your eye test. Our fans disregard for this kid borders on the ridiculous. He averaged just under 10 PPG in two years as a STARTING ACC guard.His career shooting percentage is better than Page and Dixon, the two examples given yesterday as our best two shooting guards.

He couldn't shoot the 3 pointer, which limited him. In a better program he'd likely have had a different role but he was not a guy "who would have struggled in the MAC."

 

[Zaratoughda]

As far as last year's defense is concerned.... Jame Robinson. He is not the quickest of guards (but, neither was Brad Wanamaker) and, I have seen him stay between his man and the basket when opposing guards try to penetrate. It is not easy but if you put your mind to it, even if you are not the quickest of guards, you can get the job done.

But, in rewatching the Louisville game, I saw him at times playing bad defense.. getting off his man and what not.

The problem is, what happened with our defense last year, is if one or more players stop doing what they are supposed to be doing, and consistently doing this, then pretty much after a while the defense starts breaking down across the board.

One problem, Jamel Artis getting off his man and the like. When things like this start happening on a consistent basis, it makes it more difficult on the other players and, things start falling apart. Chris Jones also gets confused out there at times and more problems along the same lines.

Also, when watching the game against Cuse in the dome, down the stretch I really got the impression that... gee wiz, it was looking like we were playing defense the way we should play it.... but then I realized that Cuse was not running high ball screens so IMO, more than anything else, that is where our defense was falling apart.

So. that brings into play the issue of MY getting worn down playing C and not getting the job done re covering the high ball screens. It was clear that this was Dixon's take, as he tried subbing in Uchebo for short stints as a matter of MY not getting worn down as much, and otherwise tried to play MY at PF if he could get away with it (but, if he did that it meant Uchebo or Randall playing C, and that was not good).

And now, it appears Dixon's strategy is to move Artis to SF and MY to PF... and this is a big time change... designed to get better D. But, our O is gonna take a hit (in BOTH cases... MY scored a lot of points with quick moves to the basket as he is quicker than most Cs, but does not have this advantage at PF).

So, guess we are gonna get to see how this all works when the time comes. Better D but... problems scoring?

What I think should be done is to play Young with ANO (both same size) and... have MY play C on D but PF on D... and play Artis with Jeter, with Jamel playing at PF on O but SF on D.

But... this is not Dixon's plan so I get to see if he ends up... evolving to something along these lines.

Otherwise, we get to see how much of a scoring hit we get with Artis at SF and MY at PF.. and if our D improves that much.

 

[Jeffburgh]

Re:Wright:
Statistics don't support your eye test. Our fans disregard for this kid borders on the ridiculous. He averaged just under 10 PPG in two years as a STARTING ACC guard.His career shooting percentage is better than Page and Dixon, the two examples given yesterday as our best two shooting guards.

He couldn't shoot the 3 pointer, which limited him. In a better program he'd likely have had a different role but he was not a guy "who would have struggled in the MAC."

"The best defense at 2G during the Howland/Dixon era ..."

Which highlights why I punted on that discussion.

Cam Wright - I always had a little greater appreciation for Cam than most Panther fans. I think he faded his senior year due to one of the little vexing things about the program where a solid kid like him gets an injury that derails the run up to his senior year. His greatest issue is that he was more like a Wannmaker "three guard" and would have looked a LOT better if the team had more of a ... TWO GUARD who would have provided a more consistent perimeter shot and been able to play two guards better than Cam could at that point in his career - as some noted, injury and otherwise he just lost the general quickness to stay in front of a quality 2G.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

3 years from now, would mean a mediocre stretch of 7 years. That is not a "short stretch". Jesus Christ, this guy got us to a few Sweet 16's and an Elite 8, he deserves a lifetime contract?

So what is your tipping point ?
Why evade that basic question?

If things get no better than current state, what do you suggest?

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

No, believe me, I absolutely got it the first time. My comments stand. There is absolutely no plausible future scenario where a retrospective view of the firing of Dixon after this past season would be viewed as anything but bat shit crazy and thus seriously damage the athletic leadership's national reputation and ability to make hires.

Paco my man. You are great ambassador for Pitt, great at touting its attributes, great at putting together statistics on how Pitt fares against other schools, but you are remedial in your knowledge of college basketball and how big time sports works.

If, operative word, IF 3 years from now, Pitt's next 3 seasons were a CBI, a 2nd rd NCAA exit and a 1st rd NIT exit following up what we just had, well it is not "bat shit crazy" to have the hindsight to say "maybe we would have been better off firing him 3 years ago than now".

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

So what is your tipping point ?
Why evade that basic question?

If things get no better than current state, what do you suggest?

How long do you keep a guy if every other year is a one or two and done in the NCAA and the other is a one and done in the NIT? How long does that merit employment at this salary level? Is it a lifetime contract? Do you think he deserves a lifetime contract? Because it sure seems like that is what a lot of you believe. And the main reason is, well we have had really bad coaches before.

 

[JS School]

Paco my man. You are great ambassador for Pitt, great at touting its attributes, great at putting together statistics on how Pitt fares against other schools, but you are remedial in your knowledge of college basketball and how big time sports works.

If, operative word, IF 3 years from now, Pitt's next 3 seasons were a CBI, a 2nd rd NCAA exit and a 1st rd NIT exit following up what we just had, well it is not "bat shit crazy" to have the hindsight to say "maybe we would have been better off firing him 3 years ago than now".

So you want to fire Dixon now, just in case if the next the next three years are mediocre it would not have been "bat shit crazy"? I don't understand your argument.

What if Pitt gets to the Final Four each of the next three years. Would it have been "bat shit crazy" not to have given him a pay increase now?

Maybe we should wait three years to discuss the next three years.

 

[Harve74]

"The best defense at 2G during the Howland/Dixon era ..."

Which highlights why I punted on that discussion.

Cam Wright - I always had a little greater appreciation for Cam than most Panther fans. I think he faded his senior year due to one of the little vexing things about the program where a solid kid like him gets an injury that derails the run up to his senior year. His greatest issue is that he was more like a Wannmaker "three guard" and would have looked a LOT better if the team had more of a ... TWO GUARD who would have provided a more consistent perimeter shot and been able to play two guards better than Cam could at that point in his career - as some noted, injury and otherwise he just lost the general quickness to stay in front of a quality 2G.

Can't disagree with anything you say here.

 

[NTOP]

How long do you keep a guy if every other year is a one or two and done in the NCAA and the other is a one and done in the NIT? How long does that merit employment at this salary level? Is it a lifetime contract? Do you think he deserves a lifetime contract? Because it sure seems like that is what a lot of you believe. And the main reason is, well we have had really bad coaches before.

That's NOT been his history, but thanks for playing. What makes you think any replacement would be an improvement?? Stability is good.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

That's NOT been his history, but thanks for playing. What makes you think any replacement would be an improvement?? Stability is good.

Absolutely! Stability is good.

So the answer to the question of "How long do you keep a guy if every other year is a one or two and done in the NCAA and the other is a one and done in the NIT?" is simple. He can stay as long as he wants to stay.

This is Pitt, not Kentucky or Duke. If you get rid of a guy producing the results you seem to feel are unacceptable you will almost certainly wind up with someone much worse (after a long search hampered by candidates unwilling to work at a place where those results are considered unsatisfactory). It would be a near certainty that Pitt would wind up in a position where even finishing over 0.500 annually becomes rare.

I will concede that if recruitsread these boards's level of unacceptability becomes/remains the status quo additional future salary increases may properly be held to more modest levels--just kept high enough to keep him from being poached.

 

[Zaratoughda]

Absolutely! Stability is good.

So the answer to the question of "How long do you keep a guy if every other year is a one or two and done in the NCAA and the other is a one and done in the NIT?" is simple. He can stay as long as he wants to stay.

This is Pitt, not Kentucky or Duke. If you get rid of a guy producing the results you seem to feel are unacceptable you will almost certainly wind up with someone much worse (after a long search hampered by candidates unwilling to work at a place where those results are considered unsatisfactory). It would be a near certainty that Pitt would wind up in a position where even finishing over 0.500 annually becomes rare.

I will concede that if recruitsread these boards's level of unacceptability becomes/remains the status quo additional future salary increases may properly be held to more modest levels--just kept high enough to keep him from being poached.

Hmmmm... if he goes 3-4 years along the lines RRTB mentions.... IMO he will be gone. This is performance at a level significantly less than what he used to bring, and IMO high level doners will have had enough.

Yeah, the level that RRTB suggests is at the level of Dave Wannstedt (or less) and... look what happened to him.

No doubt we could end up with someone that does not perform as well as Dixon... look at the replacements for Wannstedt... but you at least gotta try.

But, to say he should be let go now... would be insane.

 

[Saboteur]

I really feel that Dixon is on the line this coming year.

We've got a new chancellor, and with that a new HC in football and a new AD, and in the last four years the men's BB program has not performed up to the level it had in the past. If things don't improve here it will get to the point where it is just a matter of time.

After this year, we will be losing Robinson, Smith, Maia (assuming he qualities) and ANO, four regular rotation players (expected), who are going to be difficult to replace.

The good news is that Dixon went out and brought in the 3 good grad transfers (assuming Maia qualifies, and I can't understand how he couldn't).

But, if we go out to Japan and lose to Gonzaga and then lose at home to Purdue... the writing may well be on the wall.

Dixon had a poor showing in his second season and to me it didn't look like he was going to rebound but, amazingly he did and got the team competitive again and back into the top 25. So, IMO, what with the results over the last four seasons, he has got to do that again.

The transition period moving out of the old BE and into the ACC... is OVER. Time to get back to playing PITT basketball (and that means, among other things, top level man-to-man defense and NOT all the bizarre stuff we saw last year... but I think Dixon knows this... I sure hope he does).

I did not expect Pitt to look as "lost" as I have seen over the past few seasons. Bad luck happens usually to those who are ill prepared for it. JD seems to have lost a sense of dirction. IMHO, he got caught making a couple of assumptions and then relying on his assumptions without insuring against them. In short, he got a big contract and the pressure was off.
Today I spoke with a guy who knows more hoops that I ever will...he played DII. his response on Dixon was "he can't recruit. AAU is where the recruiting is done and he got caught relying on high school contact....also, B Knight has not brought in Jersey NYC players as expected".
Hard to argue with it.
Do I think JD is a good coach? I sure do.
Do I think he is a good recruiter? No.
Can Pitt play up to the expectations of the OP? Sure they can.....but repeating it is going to the be the bigger issue.
JD should be scrutinized heavily....he makes a ton of money and he has underperformed.
Im not smart enough to know if he can work his way out of this funk...but if he can't, then Pitt will pay a heavy price.

 

[NTOP]

Hmmmm... if he goes 3-4 years along the lines RRTB mentions.... IMO he will be gone. This is performance at a level significantly less than what he used to bring, and IMO high level doners will have had enough.

Yeah, the level that RRTB suggests is at the level of Dave Wannstedt (or less) and... look what happened to him.

No doubt we could end up with someone that does not perform as well as Dixon... look at the replacements for Wannstedt... but you at least gotta try.

But, to say he should be let go now... would be insane.

Wanny wasn't fired because of his record. High level donors don't make the call.....it'll be Barnes that does it. And it won't happen unless the record really gets worse. We should be better this year, by 5-7 games, IMHO.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

How long do you keep a guy if every other year is a one or two and done in the NCAA and the other is a one and done in the NIT? How long does that merit employment at this salary level? Is it a lifetime contract? Do you think he deserves a lifetime contract? Because it sure seems like that is what a lot of you believe. And the main reason is, well we have had really bad coaches before.

You've evaded the question again .
Why is this hard?
I'll answe yours , as long as Pitt doesn't have a better option.
Same anwer.
No.
No

Your turn. What level of performance make you want to fire Dixon ?
Assume things get no better than the past 4 years.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Wanny wasn't fired because of his record. High level donors don't make the call.....it'll be Barnes that does it. And it won't happen unless the record really gets worse. We should be better this year, by 5-7 games, IMHO.

Wanny was fired because his first 3 seasons sucked , his 4th and 5th were only above average , and season 6 was bad again.

You do bad more times than good, your job is at risk.

 

[JS School]

I did not expect Pitt to look as "lost" as I have seen over the past few seasons. Bad luck happens usually to those who are ill prepared for it. JD seems to have lost a sense of dirction. IMHO, he got caught making a couple of assumptions and then relying on his assumptions without insuring against them. In short, he got a big contract and the pressure was off.
Today I spoke with a guy who knows more hoops that I ever will...he played DII. his response on Dixon was "he can't recruit. AAU is where the recruiting is done and he got caught relying on high school contact....also, B Knight has not brought in Jersey NYC players as expected".
Hard to argue with it.
Do I think JD is a good coach? I sure do.
Do I think he is a good recruiter? No.
Can Pitt play up to the expectations of the OP? Sure they can.....but repeating it is going to the be the bigger issue.
JD should be scrutinized heavily....he makes a ton of money and he has underperformed.
Im not smart enough to know if he can work his way out of this funk...but if he can't, then Pitt will pay a heavy price.

Was Dixon recruiting this guy, and he said no thanks, I'd rather play Division II ball? If not, what makes his opinion about Dixon's recruiting any more valid than anyone else?

Personally, I think Dixon has spent too much time the last few years scouting AAU games and not enough HS games. That's how he ended up with so many guys that don't have a clue about how to play defense.

 

[thebadby2]

Wanny was fired because his first 3 seasons sucked , his 4th and 5th were only above average , and season 6 was bad again.

You do bad more times than good, your job is at risk.

Was Dixon recruiting this guy, and he said no thanks, I'd rather play Division II ball? If not, what makes his opinion about Dixon's recruiting any more valid than anyone else?

Personally, I think Dixon has spent too much time the last few years scouting AAU games and not enough HS games. That's how he ended up with so many guys that don't have a clue about how to play defense.

the prep school basketball factories haven't helped there either. All about racking up stats and showcasing individual talent, very little about team play and winning. The ND Preps, Our Saviors etc aren't building better basketball players, they're just marketing them to college recruiters.

The problem is, it seems a majority of the better players these days are ending up in those hoop factories. Not all but too many. It's refreshing to see a guy like a Cassius Winston stick with his real HS and a real HS coach. Meanwhile his AAU teammate Miles Bridges opted for the eastern prep hoop mill.

 

[Saboteur]

Was Dixon recruiting this guy, and he said no thanks, I'd rather play Division II ball? If not, what makes his opinion about Dixon's recruiting any more valid than anyone else?

Personally, I think Dixon has spent too much time the last few years scouting AAU games and not enough HS games. That's how he ended up with so many guys that don't have a clue about how to play defense.

No, I don't think JD was recruiting a 40 year old point guard. But who knows, it might come to that.
I don't know that his point is any more or less valid than anyone else, but he didn't resort to ridicule to make his point as you did. That doesn't enhance his credibility, but it diminishes yours.
Have you seen a high school game lately or an AAU.....they are the same players, but it is the AAU coach who most often holds the key.

 

[JS School]

No, I don't think JD was recruiting a 40 year old point guard. But who knows, it might come to that.
I don't know that his point is any more or less valid than anyone else, but he didn't resort to ridicule to make his point as you did. That doesn't enhance his credibility, but it diminishes yours.
Have you seen a high school game lately or an AAU.....they are the same players, but it is the AAU coach who most often holds the key.

You are the one who said the guy knows more than you. Unless he is personally familiar with Dixon's recruiting, why his his opinion more valid than yours, or anyone else? Don't sell yourself short. I'm not ridiculing anyone, just making a joke while asking if the guy has some inside knowledge about Dixon's recruiting.

Unfortunately you are right that it is the AAU coach who usually holds the key. (Not unfortunate that you are right, I mean unfortunate that the AAU coach holds the key. Just to be clear.) That means if you are going to put most of the effort in recruiting there, you are not going to see kids play in much of a team oriented environment.

 

[Delpanther]

Absolutely! Stability is good.

So the answer to the question of "How long do you keep a guy if every other year is a one or two and done in the NCAA and the other is a one and done in the NIT?" is simple. He can stay as long as he wants to stay.

This is Pitt, not Kentucky or Duke. If you get rid of a guy producing the results you seem to feel are unacceptable you will almost certainly wind up with someone much worse (after a long search hampered by candidates unwilling to work at a place where those results are considered unsatisfactory). It would be a near certainty that Pitt would wind up in a position where even finishing over 0.500 annually becomes rare.

I will concede that if recruitsread these boards's level of unacceptability becomes/remains the status quo additional future salary increases may properly be held to more modest levels--just kept high enough to keep him from being poached.

What a BS post! Dixon has earned the right to stay to determine if he can get the program back back to where he was. He will not get to stay indefinitely if the last 4 years is the pattern going forward. Your expectations are deep in the gutter. There's no reason to pay a guy $3 million a year indefinitely to produce average and below average results out of the fear that if you seek a replacement, you'll do worse based on the premise that firing a coach producing mediocre results will chase away viable candidates. You must share Steve Pedersen's brain.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

What a BS post! Dixon has earned the right to stay to determine if he can get the program back back to where he was. He will not get to stay indefinitely if the last 4 years is the pattern going forward. Your expectations are deep in the gutter. There's no reason to pay a guy $3 million a year indefinitely to produce average and below average results out of the fear that if you seek a replacement, you'll do worse based on the premise that firing a coach producing mediocre results will chase away viable candidates. You must share Steve Pedersen's brain.

Define below average or even average for me, Del.
Let's create parameters, not vague meaningless notions.

Why are the most vocal critics afraid of specifics?
Because your worst case is the coach Beating them, in your world.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

So you want to fire Dixon now, just in case if the next the next three years are mediocre it would not have been "bat shit crazy"? I don't understand your argument.

What if Pitt gets to the Final Four each of the next three years. Would it have been "bat shit crazy" not to have given him a pay increase now?

Maybe we should wait three years to discuss the next three years.

No. Not at all. Again, shut up if you don't understand the question.