You have done a nice job of making an argument that I did not make--so kudos. Putting players in their "correct" position is of course ideal, provided you have the right mix of guys that will permit you to do so. Sure, Mike can play the five, although I think any real basketball observer would agree that playing the four would be his ideal position [especially if he has any professional future playing hoops]. It really is much the same with playing Artis at 1 this season--obviously not his natural or ideal position--but necessitated by a lack of talent and players on the present squad. But back to the point I made, playing guys out of position works, if you have other guys at those positions that can play ball. As I suggested, I expect Coach Stallings will be able to recruit guys sufficiently to cover more natural fits for the team in the future--based upon his long past of being able to do so. Stallings has a pretty nice track record of attracting big men to play for him. Time will tell of course, as obviously Pitt is not Vanderbilt in so many ways. Hail to Pitt!
Stallings observation
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
You have done a nice job of making an argument that I did not make--so kudos. Putting players in their "correct" position is of course ideal, provided you have the right mix of guys that will permit you to do so. Sure, Mike can play the five, although I think any real basketball observer would agree that playing the four would be his ideal position [especially if he has any professional future playing hoops]. It really is much the same with playing Artis at 1 this season--obviously not his natural or ideal position--but necessitated by a lack of talent and players on the present squad. But back to the point I made, playing guys out of position works, if you have other guys at those positions that can play ball. As I suggested, I expect Coach Stallings will be able to recruit guys sufficiently to cover more natural fits for the team in the future--based upon his long past of being able to do so. Stallings has a pretty nice track record of attracting big men to play for him. Time will tell of course, as obviously Pitt is not Vanderbilt in so many ways. Hail to Pitt!
Well many of you have looked to his past to project for the future...so why not do the same with respect to recruiting? Beyond the past, I take the man at his word for what he wants to do at Pitt. Whether he is successful or gets it done, only time will tell. Hail to Pitt!
His recruiting in the past, as shown multiple times, has not really been any better than dixon's.
If it had been better, that is an even bigger indictment on him as a coach.
We will see. I hope he proves me wrong.
Reading perhaps is not your strong suit? Where did I say anything about Stallings recruiting being better than Dixon's? What I did say is that I expect that Stallings will be able to recruit a more balanced group of kids that are more naturally suited to playing their natural positions. Is that better? Well, only time will tell. Regardless of what your view or opinion is about Jamie Dixon--he is no longer Pitt's coach. So hopefully Pitt fans will support the new guy, at least until the point where he has coached a few games and has actually recruited and signed a few players of his own. If Stallings does succeed at Pitt, it certainly will be a major accomplishment considering the lack of overall support he appears to be receiving upon arrival. Hail to Pitt!
You are the perfect example of a d###head Pitt fan. It should not be that hard to want the new coach and players to succeed if you are a Pitt alum/fan.
A "more balanced" team that wins fewer games? What point are you trying to make?
I couldn't care less how many players are out of position as long as Pitt wins games.
With Smith , Lane and Shorter no one would have gotten a rebound against them . The issue they had was sitting on the bench . Evans just wasn't up to the task .Actually, Evans had no problem knowing where to put Jerome. From Evans' first day, he played the Power Forward from day one. It was Chipman who struggled, moving him around as a freshman.
I completely agree with the differences you noted between Smith and Young, but that also explains why one player was an All-American and #3 NBA pick and the other is All-ACC and will probably play in Europe.
And in reference to a natural shot blocker, that describes Alonzo Nelson-Ododa. And 13 minutes was too many for him against Wisconsin.
In reference to the 87-88 team, I tend to agree with your notion about how good hey could have been. But that team still had some issues with the way they played. Hard to say how much those issues would have been solved with adding shorter.
And that team still didn't have a "true center."
I'm not sure Alonzo and Charlie were in the same league as shot blockers.
I know C Smith wanted to play the 4 , but playing beside Lane a lot of the dirty work was taken care of . You need someone in there with muscle and this team and those since Adams left lacks that player. If Nix can give them 5 minutes here and there it might help .
Whoever would have thought ( after his 2nd yr ) that if Pitt had a player of the skill set of Gary McGhee since he graduated Pitt would've been so much a better team .
Who said anything about fewer wins? That would be you, not me. Pretty clear where you sit. If I were driving the Pitt bus, there are quite a few of you I would not let board when the team starts to win! Shameful that some of you call yourselves "fans." Hail to Pitt!
Again, I want to know where all this unity, and positivity was when Dixon was the coach. Dixon was heavily criticized on these boards even at his peak, and the last five years it got to an absolutely insane level.
You said he has a long history of more balanced teams, yet won fewer games than Pitt. So, again, what difference does his balance make if he is losing more games? Why would any fan at Vanderbilt care if he had a "true" PF and C in a year like 2014 when he was 15-16 overall.
If he wants his PG to be taller than his C, I really couldn't care less. Just win.
Is it possible for you to realize that what KS did or didn't accomplish at Vanderbilt has nothing to do with Pitt or what he'll do at here . JD accomplished a lot as the BE Jamie , but was nothing better than a middle of the pack ACC coach , so should TCU fans judge Jamie on his BE accomplishments, his ACC accomplishments or maybe they should actually wait and see what kind of coach he is at TCU . Because he took Pitt to a number 1 seed years ago is that what he's going to accomplish at TCU or is he going to be .500 in conference coach ,or is he going to be a bust there ? Only time will tell. Pitt football hired a coach that won the national championship how'd that work out ? (JM2 ) The season is almost here so why not stop being a Debbie Downer sit back and actually see what kind of coach KS is with a team that is basically the same as last year minus an experienced point guard .
Having long term success can only be achieved at Pitt by having a balanced roster in regards to classes and positions. Pitt isn't a Duke or Kentucky that can bring in 4/5 elite players every year to replace four of its starters like Pitt will need to do next season . Having a roster that has no point guard with experience on it also doesn't seem to be a great idea or having a team that's had no inside defensive stopper for four years . Why was Jamie constantly scrambling to fill voids in his roster with grad transfers the last four years ?Because he didn't have roster balance due to poor recruiting results . Having four of your top five players being guys possessing similar skills ,but not having a point guard or a defensive big is a great way to construct a roster. Winning is the bottom line , but you can't win without all the pieces .
Last edited:
Is it possible for you to realize that that is an absolutely moronic statement?
Have you ever hired anyone for any position ever? If so, did you look at their resume and their previous achievements or did you just ignore all that because prior work history has nothing at all to do with future results? Because if you ever actually did that it would make you just about the only person to ever hire an employee to feel that way.
The notion that what Stallings did or did not do at Vanderbilt isn't relevant to what he is likely to do at Pitt is just absurd. Obviously there are no guarantees one way or the other, but the notion that what happened at Vanderbilt isn't relevant because it didn't happen at Pit is ridiculous.
It's bizarro world on here. In what universe in any profession does previous performance not potentially indicate future performance, and if previous experience didn't matter, for any job, why not just draw names at random to fill any position?
Exactly. As I said, it's no guarantee. In fact as Pitt fans we ought to be glad that it isn't guaranteed. But the notion that there is nothing that we can take away from Stallings 23 years as a D1 head coach because it didn't happen at Pitt is silly.
Joe's explanation of your lunacy aside, I'll actually respond to you as if you were sane and rational.
@PITTLAW said that Stallings will deliver more balanced rosters BASED ON HIS PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS. That was not me. My point is that if he has such a history of balanced rosters, and players in the "proper" positions, it didn't result in more wins. What good is balance if you end up with a losing record?
As for applying the same logic to TCU, then YES, BY ALL MEANS, TCU fans should expect, BASED ON HIS PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS, Dixon is very likely to play an undersized PF or C at TCU. He did it many times at Pitt, and all reasonable logic indicates he is likely to do it in the future.
What he showed at Vanderbilt was he was a capable head coach at a D1 school that played within the confines of NCAA regulations . That he graduated 70% of the STUDENT ATHLETES and his players didn't creat off court issues that embrassed the university .
You and my bud Lavknowitall somehow think that Pitt was going to steal away some great D1 coach and that he'd bring along with him 5 elite recruits. Get real , without going out on a limb with an unproven D1 coach who was Pitt going to get for the $$$$ that they were willing to pay . If Pitt hired a Willard like coach the Pete would be a tomb in two years.
Mr Lavknowitall Pitt played with undersized front court men because JD couldn't recruit them ....duh
There were plenty of threads and posts in defense of Dixon while he was Pitt's coach. If you missed them, shame on you. But at this point, Dixon is irrelevant when it comes to Pitt. I know looking to the present and future is not generally in the DNA of most Pittsburgher's...but always looking to the past, without learning from it, is a waste of time. Hail to Pitt!
I guess the premise of my point was that if you are a Pitt fan, it may be intelligent to wait to see whether the team wins and what kind of talent is signed and developed on the Court BEFORE throwing the Coach, Team and Program to the wolves. While obviously a person's past has some relevance to possible future outcomes...it is just as obviously not an absolute certainty that the past will repeat in any meaningful way. The kind of kids Stallings is coaching at Pitt are COMPLETELY different than the kids he was coaching at Vanderbilt. The schools, the conferences, the styles of play...all very different. I have said it several times here before, Stallings was not my choice, but I intend to support him, the players and program until one or all of them demonstrate that my support is not deserved. Hail to Pitt!
He showed at Vanderbilt that he was a coach who got lesser results even though he competed against easier competition. I mean I can understand why you'd want to ignore that, but it doesn't change the facts, no matter how many posts you make pretending otherwise.
And nowhere have I said that Pitt was going to get some great D1 coach who would bring along five elite recruits with him. I did, however, expect that Pitt was going to hire someone who wasn't about to get fired from his previous job because of their dissatisfaction with the job he was doing.
Joe, it is pretty easy to determine that most Pitt fan's expectations were not met with the hiring of Stallings. Whether those expectations were realistic or were distorted by some things said at the time...ultimately really matters not. The real question for you and other professed Panther fans is whether you will support the new coaches, team and program--despite being not personally satisfied with the hire? Creating such an atmosphere of negativity for a new coaching staff to enter and attempt to compete in a very difficult league, with a team that has obvious defects on its face--is pretty daunting. I have no idea how the Stallings story at Pitt will be written when it comes to a close. But I do know that with such negativity being expressed openly by some of Pitt's supposed best fans--makes the mountain to climb even more difficult than it already is. The football program seems to have survived several poor hires over the course of the past several decades...whether basketball can or must do the same, I hope we do not have to find out. Hail to Pitt!
No Pitt fan should indict Stallings at this point. If any of us are offered a good job that essentially bails us out of being fired at our previous jobs, I think all of us would take that open door. That's what Stallings did when Barnes offered him the Pitt job. Let's see if he can coach at Pitt.
The indictments should be directed toward Barnes and how he did this hire. That's first. If Stallings can't win here, then Barnes should be heavily criticized and brought to task for being incompetent and hiring the wrong guy. It's more on Barnes than anyone in my eyes.
The indictments should be directed toward Barnes and how he did this hire. That's first. If Stallings can't win here, then Barnes should be heavily criticized and brought to task for being incompetent and hiring the wrong guy. It's more on Barnes than anyone in my eyes.
It is just as silly and foolish to "indict" Barnes until after you see what kind of job Stallings does. Maybe the hire will be a disaster and both guys get fired. Maybe the hire turns out to produce status quo results? Maybe the hire is a home run and Pitt wins an ACC title down the road? Nobody knows for sure...so throwing stones at the coaches or the AD at this time is just dumb. Considering Pitt was a .500 ACC team last year, with some major holes in the line up returning--it is going to take a season or two to determine exactly what kind of a job/hire Pitt has. Hail to Pitt!
Pretty simple. If Pitt would have hired an up and coming coach, I would have given the new coach the benefit of the doubt. I was ready up give mike Haywood the benefit of the doubt despite 90% of the fanbase wanting to immediately fire him.
Stalling's is a known, and is known to be average at best. That is my issue. Barnes let a guy go that had proven he could reach the top levels of the sport, and then replaced him with a guy that is KNOWN to be far inferior. I don't blame stalling's for what he is, but I sure as heck blame Barnes.
If Pitt hired Bryce Drew, it might not work out, but there was at least a chance to have huge success. That isn't likely there with stallings.
Stalling's is a known, and is known to be average at best. That is my issue. Barnes let a guy go that had proven he could reach the top levels of the sport, and then replaced him with a guy that is KNOWN to be far inferior. I don't blame stalling's for what he is, but I sure as heck blame Barnes.
If Pitt hired Bryce Drew, it might not work out, but there was at least a chance to have huge success. That isn't likely there with stallings.
How many times are you going to deny the words you wrote? I have not once extrapolated what Stallings results will be in this thread. You were the one that said his previous recruiting indicates how his future recruiting will fare. My question has been firmly planted in analyzing his past results, which you brought up. If he had such balanced rosters at Vanderbilt, which you are saying will translate to his new school, why did those balanced rosters not win more games? You have dodged that question three times now.
I'm not indicting Barnes for the results that may or may not happen with Stallings. Like I said, he hasn't coached one game at Pitt yet. But I do find Barnes culpable for the questionable hiring process of Stallings and the motivation he might have had to hire Stallings. Barnes did not handle that hiring process very well at all and he is accountable for that.
Now we wait and see if Stallings can at least bring us to the levels of performance that we were used to when Pitt was in the BE, because I'm sure that's what Pitt fans are expecting. I know that's what my expectations are. Get us to some 25 win seasons and some deep runs in the NCAA's to Sweet 16 and possibly beyond.
But I will say this about Stallings. His past performance, if it is an indicator and predictor, is not good for Pitt. That is part of the disappointment that Pitt fans are feeling.
Where did I say that recruiting more balanced classes would result in more or less wins? I said nothing about either. Only that he historically recruited pretty balanced classes--so that maybe that would also happen at Pitt. I recognize Stallings career past, as well as recognize that things are pretty different at Pitt. Personally, I do think Pitt will fare better when there are adequate big men and adequate guards in the system...but that will take some time to get there based upon the unbalanced roster that exists today. I cannot say that I ever watched or cared about Vanderbilt in the past...so I have no observations or notes upon which I may rely to respond to questions about that program and how it performed ever---other than perhaps the Barry Goheen game, which in the context of today--means Zero. Hail to Pitt!
Again, why would anyone care whether the roster was balanced if it would not result in more wins? You are arguing that Pitt should seek a more balanced roster, so obviously you think there is some positive side effect of this, otherwise you must have some sort of strange OCD related to player heights falling in ascending order.
Apparently you ignored the part of the post where I said that I personally believe a more balanced roster is likely to lead to more wins...but it obviously is not a sure thing...as the balanced roster also has to have some talent, etc. Will take a couple of recruiting classes before we can make any judgments on the subject with respect to Stallings at Pitt. No OCD on player heights, but I have attended enough NCAA tournament games where Pitt got schooled by lesser programs that actually had a center on their roster to appreciate what a center brings to the court. Hail to Pitt!
As the skilled and accomplished member of your profession that you most certainly are, it was my hope that you might appreciate my amateurish attempt to borrow this trick of your trade!
The question isn't what any of us want out of the program , but what does Pitt want . They can say anything they want ,but their actions speak louder than words . I wasn't happy with what transpired with Jamie leaving and the hiring of Stalllings ,but guess what nobody called me and asked me what I thought .
They got paid to get out of an expensive long term contract and then they hired a less expensive coach , what does that sound like to you ? Well it doesn't sound like a plan to win a national championship to me .
They want to run a clean program were the players stay out of trouble and graduate. They want a competitive team , but their not chasing the elite programs . Pitt went out an got them the coach that can accomplish these goals , they didn't go out an get the coach to win the NCAAs.
So who cares what he did at Vanderbilt , I only care that he can keep Pitt in the middle of the pack of the ACC . I hope he can occasionally bring in future NBA talent to entertain us . I hope Pitt can occasionally compete in the ACC. I hope Pitt can occasionally win an NCAA game. When Pitt $tep$ up to the plate then
I'll worry about a coaches past pedigree .
The problem with this hire is that there is at least a moderate possibility that we will not get even a middle of the pack and competitive ACC team but a Boston College like bottom dweller result and our fan base will not support a team that doesn't make the NCAAs regularly because it has been spoiled by the Howland-Dixon era.
I won't wait, stallings will be a flop of a hire .
I'll be happy to be proven wrong /
I'll be happy to be proven wrong /
Actually, it is comments like this that are the real problem. So hypothetically let's pretend you happen to be right? What then? What is it you advocate that Pitt fans do in anticipation of things going badly? Is it not also possible that the team will continue much along the spectrum where it has been the past 4 or 5 seasons? Unless you have a workable solution, no need to be chicken little...they play the games for a reason. Hail to Pitt!
It is not what Pitt fans should do in anticipation--nothing can be done in anticipation.
It is what they will do if/when it happens. That will be not showing up and cancelling season tickets in very large numbers. Pittsburghers in general only support winners.
This hire scares many into expecting this outcome. Let's hope it doesn't happen.
I'll be there rooting the team on all season just like I did when Jamie Dixon was the coach and Ben Howland was the coach and Ralph Willard was the coach and all the way back to when Roy Chipman was the coach. I will desperately hope that Stalling can prove to be more at Pitt than he ever showed at Vanderbilt. As I have said before, I will continue to hope that a new voice will help the current team to achieve better results than they may have under the old coach. That certainly does happen, but on the other hand the converse happens pretty frequently as well.
However I will also say that the notion that whether I think that Stallings is the worst hire in the history of college basketball or the greatest hire ever (or something in between those extremes) isn't going to make Stallings job one bit harder or one bit easier than it already is. If he wins, fans will support him. If he doesn't, fans won't support him. It's his job to win games, it's not my job to blindly follow along while he attempts to accomplish his job. The day that the thoughts and feelings of a random fan causes the head coach the kinds of problems you are suggesting is the day that the coach needs to move on to his next job. Or get out of the profession entirely.
I'm gonna puke. Citing points per game and rebound per game numbers... I'm gonna puke. You are (to put it politely) uninformed. Pitt was 28th in schedule adjusted points per possession last year. Ignore points per game. Points per game tells you nothing. Per game stats are badly distorted by tempo. Pitt played slowly (few possessions) under Dixon, but scored on a lot of those possessions. A team that scores a bucket on every single one of their 50 possessions is doing much better offensively than a team that scores on 51 out of 101 possessions, though the latter team will score more points per game. Make sense?
kenpom.com
Start there. For the love of God, please start there.
