This guy just took over
- Thread starter gary2
- Start date
You are correct. He was a 4-star in his original class. Then he reclassified and his rating dropped.
Since you believe it’s the players and not the coaches or not at least an equal split, I’d be interested to hear your description of Jeff Capel’s coaching philosophy as it relates to the type of offensive and defensive systems and principles he preaches and employs, as well as how he recruits to his systems and philosophies. Because as far as I can tell, he basically just rolls out the basketball offensively, and recruits whoever he can get to sign on the dotted line without any real consideration as to how the player fits his philosophy.
I know I have seen high schools with a more complex, play driven , taken advantage of mismatches, inbounds plays that lead to easy baskets, then what Pitt is currently doing , regardless if his defenders on this board believe it or not!
I would not argue with you on that point. I respect what you are saying, and I often feel the same. A number of posters, too many to reference, have said that the team doesn’t look like it runs sets. We don’t see them block out for defensive rebounds. We often didn’t see good spacing or good ball movement or good help. And what about the old Dixon/Howland mantra that a shot is not a good shot unless there are people in place to rebound the miss? It was all there. We all saw it. And so I agree that it looked as if there was no system. But if we all saw it, it was really basic stuff, and the coaches saw it, too. The conclusion I make is that we just weren’t that good.
What is inconceivable is that the coaches don’t know why they were losing. They know everything about a game. They know how many shots every player is taking, how many rebounds, how many mistakes. The coaches know exactly why they lose every game, even if they don’t say it. But you can see the pained looks on Capel’s face in the same way we used to see Dixon put his head into his hands.
It’s also inconceivable that the coaches don’t have game plans or that they just roll the ball out. That idea circulates sometimes about teams that get top recruits. Does it look as if Calipari’s teams don’t play hard? We have all watched how well Duke plays defense. Capel was a part of that as a player and a coach. Would Coach K have kept him there at his right hand for all those years if he wasn’t contributing plenty to Duke’s success? Jason Capel played for Guthridge who was Dean Smith’s main guy. Don’t you think he knows something about playing defense? All the coaches on this board, from higher levels to peewee leagues, are teachers of the game. We have just watched splendid displays of basketball teams playing as teams, and that is almost always the difference between winning and losing. None of this is a secret. The winning coaches all talk about how the players have bought in and worked and meshed, and that all comes before execution.
Capel got the players he got, probably by force of personality. Who would have wanted to come to Pitt, the worst program in all the major conferences, maybe even in history? Who would have wanted to jump into that dumpster fire? I give the first recruiting class credit. But they had limitations. I don’t blame the coaches. They did what they could with whom they got. Capel didn’t have backups. He didn’t have upperclassmen or leadership. His first class was the foundation, the first step. They made Pitt competitive. But there was static. There was a lack of chemistry on and off the court. We heard of it and we saw it even in games. If the coaches couldn’t correct all the problems on the team, it is inconceivable that they stopped working at it. Does anyone think the coaches didn’t talk to the players about the mistakes they were making? There are some problems that cannot be overcome.
Capel has basically had one core class. It is too early to write him off.
What is inconceivable is that the coaches don’t know why they were losing. They know everything about a game. They know how many shots every player is taking, how many rebounds, how many mistakes. The coaches know exactly why they lose every game, even if they don’t say it. But you can see the pained looks on Capel’s face in the same way we used to see Dixon put his head into his hands.
It’s also inconceivable that the coaches don’t have game plans or that they just roll the ball out. That idea circulates sometimes about teams that get top recruits. Does it look as if Calipari’s teams don’t play hard? We have all watched how well Duke plays defense. Capel was a part of that as a player and a coach. Would Coach K have kept him there at his right hand for all those years if he wasn’t contributing plenty to Duke’s success? Jason Capel played for Guthridge who was Dean Smith’s main guy. Don’t you think he knows something about playing defense? All the coaches on this board, from higher levels to peewee leagues, are teachers of the game. We have just watched splendid displays of basketball teams playing as teams, and that is almost always the difference between winning and losing. None of this is a secret. The winning coaches all talk about how the players have bought in and worked and meshed, and that all comes before execution.
Capel got the players he got, probably by force of personality. Who would have wanted to come to Pitt, the worst program in all the major conferences, maybe even in history? Who would have wanted to jump into that dumpster fire? I give the first recruiting class credit. But they had limitations. I don’t blame the coaches. They did what they could with whom they got. Capel didn’t have backups. He didn’t have upperclassmen or leadership. His first class was the foundation, the first step. They made Pitt competitive. But there was static. There was a lack of chemistry on and off the court. We heard of it and we saw it even in games. If the coaches couldn’t correct all the problems on the team, it is inconceivable that they stopped working at it. Does anyone think the coaches didn’t talk to the players about the mistakes they were making? There are some problems that cannot be overcome.
Capel has basically had one core class. It is too early to write him off.
Last edited:
I agree that I’m not quite ready to write him off. But I’m about 85% there. If I saw any evidence of sound coaching principles, philosophy and plan, as well as some meaningful progression of the state of the program, and less of a revolving door of personnel, I’d feel better about him and could give him some slack on his recruiting struggles. Yes we’re better than 0-18, but those guys are long gone amd we’re still really bad. It does not appear that he is building anything at Pitt beyond immediate PT for mediocre transfers.
Last edited:
Well said - This coming year should have been the year we had a “talented, veteran team”,
We do not because Capel could not handle “his” building blocks.
They either decided to leave on their own or he decided they were “defective“ and chose to “tear down what he had built”.
Yes. I think we’re on the same page, at the beginning of the narrative, at least. As I remarked initially, I preferred the Howland/Dixon style. Watching Pitt the past few years, I also wondered what the coaches were doing. I eventually came to the conclusion that it couldn’t be the coaches because the players kept talking about decision-making and trying to be more under control. That was evidence that the coaches were talking to them about it. But then we would only rarely see the evidence in their playing. As another example, we kept watching them not put bodies on opponents for rebounding. I couldn’t imagine that the coaches weren’t telling them to block out, in practices and games. Is there a coach anywhere that doesn’t do that? Then they actually got a bit better at rebounding, or at least some of them. Champagnie’s greatness at it certainly helped their numbers. In short, there was evidence that the coaches were working with the players, and evidence that the players had heard them, but the players just were not absorbing everything. Not all students improve. And most particularly the lessons of teamwork: the players never seemed to be on the same page with one another. How many times in the game threads did posters point out guys who were open for better shots but were missed or ignored? How many times did we watch a single player try to put the team on his back, either to glorious success or dismal failure?
What’s the phrase? Dance with the one that brung ya? Or the alternative: it takes two to tango. Johnson, McGowens, and Toney were the team as freshmen, as sophomores, and coming into last year, when Campagnie’s terrific emergence paradoxically seemed to provoke static. During that whole time, we talked about getting players to add to or complement our three foundational players, the so-called pieces to complete the puzzle. Wasn’t that the consensus? What did the recruits make of their limited prospects to be featured? It wasn’t until Johnson’s tenure appeared limited that we could get a competent successor at point guard. During Davis’ recruitment, the discussion centered on issues of how he could be used with Johnson as the guy, such as how much longer Johnson would stay, whether Love would be gone sooner to open up playing time, what was Davis thinking, and so on. There were Board discussions about who would come to Pitt to play second fiddle to that first class that was going to bring Pitt back. We know so little about recruiting not only from the coaches, but also about the role of the players, and the atmosphere and vibes that the recruits might have perceived. The three-headed monster was our identity. It wasn’t until Champagnie’s emergence that we started talking about how Capel could sell an ability to develop players. Pitt is now a tough sell. A good post player would have gone a long way to help the team, but Coulibaly, who could at least make shots, was typically ignored more than Champagnie. I do see Johnson, McGowens, and Toney as Capel’s first defining class for the first Pitt team he put together, one with limited success. Now he is going to build a new team. Anyone who comes to a hornet’s nest with a recently dominant team that just lost by 55 points at home deserves a long rope. At least now he has a floor under his feet.
And so that is the narrative I come up with. The coaches had a program at the bottom of the conference, with these main guys who were good enough that they couldn’t easily be recruited over and who were not as team-oriented as they might have been. The Post-Gazette has been re-running an article about Knight and Howland. It talks about the brutal pick-up games and even fights and about how hard the Knight teams worked and worked at being better. When Knight was being recruited and beginning his career, there was already buzz that he was going to change Pitt basketball. Capel is a very, very experienced guy who has seen it all. He hasn’t found his Knight.
What’s the phrase? Dance with the one that brung ya? Or the alternative: it takes two to tango. Johnson, McGowens, and Toney were the team as freshmen, as sophomores, and coming into last year, when Campagnie’s terrific emergence paradoxically seemed to provoke static. During that whole time, we talked about getting players to add to or complement our three foundational players, the so-called pieces to complete the puzzle. Wasn’t that the consensus? What did the recruits make of their limited prospects to be featured? It wasn’t until Johnson’s tenure appeared limited that we could get a competent successor at point guard. During Davis’ recruitment, the discussion centered on issues of how he could be used with Johnson as the guy, such as how much longer Johnson would stay, whether Love would be gone sooner to open up playing time, what was Davis thinking, and so on. There were Board discussions about who would come to Pitt to play second fiddle to that first class that was going to bring Pitt back. We know so little about recruiting not only from the coaches, but also about the role of the players, and the atmosphere and vibes that the recruits might have perceived. The three-headed monster was our identity. It wasn’t until Champagnie’s emergence that we started talking about how Capel could sell an ability to develop players. Pitt is now a tough sell. A good post player would have gone a long way to help the team, but Coulibaly, who could at least make shots, was typically ignored more than Champagnie. I do see Johnson, McGowens, and Toney as Capel’s first defining class for the first Pitt team he put together, one with limited success. Now he is going to build a new team. Anyone who comes to a hornet’s nest with a recently dominant team that just lost by 55 points at home deserves a long rope. At least now he has a floor under his feet.
And so that is the narrative I come up with. The coaches had a program at the bottom of the conference, with these main guys who were good enough that they couldn’t easily be recruited over and who were not as team-oriented as they might have been. The Post-Gazette has been re-running an article about Knight and Howland. It talks about the brutal pick-up games and even fights and about how hard the Knight teams worked and worked at being better. When Knight was being recruited and beginning his career, there was already buzz that he was going to change Pitt basketball. Capel is a very, very experienced guy who has seen it all. He hasn’t found his Knight.
How's he doing at winning games? Not too well.
But this started as a recruiting thread. How's he doing at recruiting? Okay. Not great, or even good, but not as bad as a lot of people believe.
After watching Dixon get sacked and replaced by Stallings, with that strange press conference when Barnes stood up and twisted everything around right in front of our faces, and then that first Stallings year gritting our teeth watching a decent team slowly disintegrate, and then the winless nineteen-loss year in conference: Man! It was like certifiable PTSD. Who can get a perspective on anything? It was unbelievable how fast the program fell apart, and it was impossible for us fans to recognize the full extent of the catastrophe. Watching Johnson make an acrobatic lay-up seemed like deliverance. But Johnson told us as a freshman that he didn’t plan on sticking around too long. What was he building here? That’s the connection between recruiting and losses.
Plenty of us warned how bad the stallings hire would destroy the program .
Frankly that he failed so bad do fast was a blessing .
It forced a reset .
Capel May fail
But it will be because he couldn’t elevate the program- not because he destroyed it
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT-ish: Louisville NIL Collective ran by former Pitt Baseball player- Latest: ChiefJusticeMarshall
