Sure, no one could expect the UVA performance on any kind of regular basis. But we could expect something better than what we have seen in some of these recent games. I guess it really doesn't matter, though, what we expect.
The Future of Pitt Basketball & Other Dribbles ...
- Thread starter DT_PITT
- Start date
Maybe you dont get it!
The "senior leaders" Dixon recruits quit leading and working hard which generally causes a performance drop-off.
You noticed the performance drop-off /quit in the Louisville beatdown I mean game right?
Not sure you've noticed but thats why you've seen the entire 1st team removed and the "supersubs" inserted in the game!
When PITT puts the "supersubs" in the basket should be lowered to the 7 ft level. Nix gets about 6 inches of air when he jumps so maybe he can dunk one at 7 ft? He also almost times out the shot clock getting back on D but he's a Dixon recruit same as Kithcart who knows what his skills are and Manguault another mystery recruit.
That Dixon guy must have been a hot recruiter?
Last edited:
And? Are you trying to counter some point, or just talking to the wall?
I think the question was which point was recruits trying to refute? Or was it just idle chatter?
I think what you wrote would be more regarding my post. Recruits seemed to be trying to counter some point I made, when in fact, he was saying the same thing my post conveyed. But he was being his usual hyper sensitive self maybe?
Well they always say leave a job in a better position than when you found it, so in that respect Jamie did not. Look, the biggest reason why I brought up Ben is not that he has been forgotten (but he has) but more to the point this University somehow managed to hire him when things were much more dire than they were this offseason. My point is, Jamie Dixon is not the only guy who could coach here. And this isn't even a shot at Jamie, as much as it is a shot at the hiring process and what went down to have Kevin Stallings here. I am not sure why this is so contentious.
It's not contentious, it's just you wrote it replying to a post that has absolutely nothing to do with what you just wrote. I don't disagree with what you wrote, it was just strange in the context of what you responded to. I think that is why DT wrote, huh?
How is the weather? Ham sandwich.
By that standard Jackie sherrill left Pitt football worse.
Your point is exactly what mine is. The evolution of Pitt hoops has been a slow decline back to caveman. There is plenty of blame all around, I just let Kubrick do the talking for me.
Irrelevant. What does this have to do with basketball. Let's focus on basketball.
Analogy to point out a flawed premise.
You see a linear regression from sweet 16 to bubble as a decline despite over 13 years.
It's a silly premise.
But . I suppose bubble to last place is more dramatic
I guess Alabama should fire Saben then .
Arguing that the state of program is anything but pathetic right now shows just ridiculous you are.
Dude, he wasn't the one that made the argument, and I would say that the program was not pathetic. Trending towards mediocrity, yes, but pathetic?
It's owt making the linear regression.
His point, not mine .
Pitt hoops is a dumpster fire with our captain asleep at the wheel.,, when he's not blaming everyone else., publicly.
What's your definition of mediocre 1-17 ,2-16 .....When hard core loyal fans can't watch anymore I'd say the teams pathetic .
Again, irrelevant. You are comparing a 12-0 National Title with a coach who went 33-3 and left the program with the favorite to win another national title the very next year. Nice analogy. Well done. Comparing it to a coach who left a Sweet 16, top 10 program to one who left the program picked preseason 12th the next year.
Again, good analogy.
Yep both left the program worse than they inherited.
Very relevant, sherrill just did it in less time.
Undefeated champions= declined.
It's your point.
One snap shot in time (undefeated national champions) to a lower level of achievement a few years later.
Sherrill declined the program he inherited.
its your point, not mine
Come on Recruits, let him keep going, it's entertaining reading his logic.
It's not my logic.
When looking at a 13 season timeline looking at year-1 and comparing to year 13 is a silly exercise.
And you'd have to a mope to randomly interject that point in year 13+1 after the coach is gone
For those that weren't around Sherrill left Foge with a team that should've won the national championship they were pre season #1 . It was Dan Marino's senior year and the team had three first round draft picks . One #1 the next season and the second and forth players picked the following years draft . The cupboard wasn't bare . His three previous seasons at Pitt he went 11-1. No resemblance to Pitt bb at any point in time.
The Golden Panther era of FB !
Umm....the last 5 years? So you do not agree that the program backslid since Jamie took it over? I am not talking 2007, that is not relevant. I am talking the last few years, you know, the years leading up and helped produce this result, this year.
So you don't think it had declined, and in fact significantly declined?
Took over for howland 13 years ago?
Make up your mind about what silly timeframe you want. 5 years or 13 years.
Of course it backslid from #1 seeds and top 5 rankings. That's a meaningless context.
When you judge from the peak or near peak of historical success, you always backslide .
Just about everything we all debate on this board is a silly exercise. However, your parallel of Sherrill to Dixon, while an attempt by you to be clever, really was some pretty flawed logic.
Keep changing the subject. Obviously people see through.
And you never answered my straightforward question. Did Pitt BB decline at the end of Jamie's tenure?
Yes. It went from one of the top 5-10 programs in the country over the first 8 years of his tenure to maybe in the 30-35 range the last 5 years.
Dumpster fire is not what I would call that, and I hardly expected Pitt to turn into a blue blood.
Now that I answered that Dixon backslid, answer this question. Were the last 5 years horrible, and did they warrant many people wanting the coach pushed out?
We are talking about Dixon's tenure, not stallings. The team went 9-9 last year and made the tournament. We don't know how Dixon does with this team so using a hypothetical 1-17 record to prove a point Dixon ranked the program is not a valid point.
For all we know, Dixon might have the team sitting at .500 or better in the ACC.
No one knows what would have occurred had Dixon remained. He might have used the open scholarship to bring in a point guard (many believed there was not need because we already had 3 point guards and 2 others that had played some point) Anyway, I doubt Jamel would not be playing the point. We undoubtedly would be playing a different style on offense and defense.
Conversely some players may have transferred out or just simply left. Wilson and one of Young or Artis were speculated.
I don't believe there would have been massive roster changes, so likely, the bench would be the bench.
Dixon would have had to deal with the injuries to Ryan and Mike (if he was still here)
Based on his previous history, our record this year could be better. I think it is also possible though probably not likely, that it could be the same or worse.(The OC could have been disastrous if no one was found to play the point and Dixon tried to go with Kithcart, Wilson or Milligan)
I doubt Dixon's recruiting would have picked up. I believe he was done as a recruiter at Pitt. Next season would look every bit as ominous, maybe even a little more so because of recruiting.
I think there's some points here worth discussing. Perhaps is wise to recognize that Dixon really IS the only guy who COULD coach here, in that no one else had demonstrated results over the long haul the way that he did.
What Howland accomplished was nothing short of remarkable of course, turning it around the way that he did. But don't forget the quote from Howland stating one of the reasons he left was that he didn't think he could have sustained the success at Pitt the way that Dixon had. (Granted, that's likely at least some PR BS he threw out there to prop up his buddy.)
Along the same lines, I think Ben Howland could have had sustained success here had he stuck around longer. But he didn't, which IS partly the issue.
One point we probably agree upon is the notion that Dixon is certainly NOT the only guy who CAN coach here with a high level of success. Of course there are others who can, at least to the level we have been the last four years. There's no doubt about this. The issue for many, or at least many in this thread, is there belief the Stallings is not one of those guys. Time will tell on this, of course.
From what I've begun to gather however, I'm beginning to believe that Barnes thought our basketball program was a little bit more at a plug and play level, and that it wouldn't be all that hard to find a coach who could fill Dixon's shoes. Now again, it's yet to be seen if Stallings can do that, and his record will begin to answer this question in the 2018-2019 season.
But for now, I can see why folks are skeptical about Stallings. Let's just accept for a moment that Dixon was one of a relatively small group of coaches who could maintain high level success here (and no previous Pitt coach had come close for an extended period of time). The hire of Stallings just didn't create the "feel" that he was another one of those guys who was in that "relatively small group."
Some interesting thoughts -- One thing we will indeed never know is if Jamel and Mike would have stayed. There were strong indications that Damon would have left. I've never heard anything to give me a strong opinion one way or the other about Mike and Jamel though.
If so, I'm sure Dixon would have scrambled around and filled the roster, for better or worse. I'm also inclined to think the Dixon would have made better use of Kithcart, Wilson or Milligan than we are currently seeing from them as individuals. But that doesn't mean the team would have been any better off because of this.
At the end of the day, I guess we are all going through this exercise because we are trying to get some kind of a way to judge how Stallings is actually doing. And we are all guessing of course.
Maybe what's best is that we simply just go with the idea that we just need to wipe this season from our minds and start fresh.
Like the idea I used to start this thread, regardless of whether Stallings had ended this season 9-9 in the ACC all the way to 1-17 in the ACC, he was going to have to rebuild the roster. We brought him here with the idea that he could recruit better than Dixon. We'll start to get a better idea of this by September, and a much better idea by November 2018.
Not in your dreams .
I won't argue that Jamie is the better coach , but these players and the entire roster which might have included one so so grad transfer isn't good enough to compete in the ACC . Why you can't see this is just baffling . The fact that you can't admit that Pitt has struggled for the last three seasons in the ACC is also baffling . Open your eyes look at the product on the court look at the empty seats in the Pete ,ask yourself why are those seats empty .
See things as they are not what you want , this is the worst roster Pitt has had in a very long time with absolutely no potential waiting in the wings . Next yr is going to worse because there's no talent on the bench all JDs men .
My only question to you is how are related to Jamie ?
DT, pardon me for being late to the party....but I really never stopped and thought about it. We gave Stallings a 6 year contract! OHMIGOD! What was Barnes thinking? What was Gallagher thinking? Were was any advisors? Again, I don't know why this never resonated with me, but it hit me today.
I was all for giving him a chance from the get go, even though I didn't like the choice. But my god, we kind of painted ourselves in a corner.
And as far as Barnes goes, again I was first on the train happy when the news was leaking that he may leave. Just never impressed and I don't think he ever understood the region and how Pitt fit here. That initial press conference, which was admittedly unfair to KS, showed how lack of awareness he had.
As for Jamie, the problem is, his first 8 years were so different than the last 5. Maybe the last 5 were more a regression to the mean, and the first 8 (and Ben's last 2) were the anomaly. But those 10 years is a pretty solid run, and much more of an accomplishment than a program making a meteoric run to a Final 4 and like a meteor, burning out just as fast. I would think 10 years was enough to build a foundation. Especially without a coaching change.
But it didn't, and we didn't slide, we stepped down a significant level. Now what transpired to cause Jamie to depart, I don't even want to get into, a lot of conjecture and alot of discouraging possibilities. That being said, unlike football recruiting, it is hard to find a really comprehensive year by year ranking list beyond the top 25. And the one that actually had rankings of at least the top 100 teams, Pitt was in the 80's over the past 3 years. I don't think this can be understated that the previous staff and HC just completely failed at this very important part of the job. Failed. No other word to use.
I think the right hire could still do well here, but as we seen at Maryland, NC State, Ga Tech, Wake, BC (yes I know Maryland isn't in the ACC anymore) we see that there is nothing guarenteed. I guess it is our turn.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Can't wait for Tuesday.......really will be a barometer but- Latest: KielbaceaDennis
