- Atmosphere much better
- Pitino definitely coaches different on the road, not as aggressive to start
- Didn't get the sense he actually felt they were in real danger of losing though
- Once they turned it up a little, Pitt crumbled
- 27-12 finish disappointing at home
- Young's legs seem gone and in some matchups he's just too small
- Still doesn't seem Jamie has rotation figured out with Luther etc
- Overall credible effort sans the wheels falling off at end
- Field weak this year -still have a shot!
Thoughts(if you care)
- Thread starter TIGER-PAUL
- Start date
Yes, Louisville had the quite confidence that they knew they could turn it on and take control when they needed to, they did in the first half and did it again in the second half.
This, by this group's standard, was a gritty performance. But, they have a two year pattern now, when they going gets tough, they fold.
You see it in the big blowouts where they just completely fold.
But, you also see in these types of games, too, where they get an 8 point lead or so, are on the verge of putting the other team on the ropes, and in a blink of an eye the other team scores 8 points to tie the game.
I have NEVER seen a team have this happen so regularly.
Give up 8 point or so leads in the time it takes to fart.
A lot has been made about why we are so bad at home against good teams. This is what I think:
Against good teams, The Pete is still fairly packed, loud, and a good atmosphere. That "environment" brings out the best on the other team. They seemed to be locked in and bring their A games to tought out a win in what they believe is such a difficult, hostile environment. But, quite simply, this Pitt team isnt good enough to beat good teams ANYWHERE unless that team is off their game. It has come to the point where I almost feel we have a disadvantage playing at home because we aren't good enough to beat hyped up teams.
Against good teams, The Pete is still fairly packed, loud, and a good atmosphere. That "environment" brings out the best on the other team. They seemed to be locked in and bring their A games to tought out a win in what they believe is such a difficult, hostile environment. But, quite simply, this Pitt team isnt good enough to beat good teams ANYWHERE unless that team is off their game. It has come to the point where I almost feel we have a disadvantage playing at home because we aren't good enough to beat hyped up teams.
The verdict has been in for a long time.
The core of this team, Young, Artis and JRob, just don't have the mental toughness, focus, discipline, confidence, whatever it is, to win games against good teams.
Home, Road or where ever.
"Talent" is an issue to an extent, but outside of physical strength, this crew is no less "talented" than the Howland/JD teams that beat these kinds teams at home 9 out of 10 times.
Disagree. They are as talented as the 2010 or 2014 teams. Just don't have the moxie and BB IQ.
Yes, this team IS less talented than those teams.
Lets take Dixon's worst "good ole days" team, the team that lost to Pacific. Here's that starting 5
Krauser
Graves
3 by committe (DeGroat, Benjamin, Kendall)
Troutman
Taft
Come on, that team is better at 4 of the 5 positions.
No, it isn't.
Krauser was not "more talented" than JRob. They were very similar athletes. Krauser, was at best marginally quicker. but was like JROB in that he was not really quick or explosive. JRob is a better shooter. But, CK was a LOT tougher, a LOT more confident.
Graves was a better athlete than Jones, but did not have Jones' "talent" relative to shooting and scoring. He would run a little faster, could play better defense, but until his senior year was not as effective of an offensive player - because of the extreme lack of depth at guard he had to play a lot more than he was really ready to play until about mid way through his junior season. Talent wise they are a wash.
Artis is hands down more talented than what that team had at SF.
Young is equally as "talented" as Chevy, who had great innate feel and a top of the line touch inside, but Young has more height, better athleticism and shooting ability.
Center, obviously Taft was light years better than what they have at C.
This teams's bench has a VERY clear "talent" edge in Jeter, Luther, Cam John, Wilson than that team past the starters.
It depend on how you define talent. I define talent as their overall basketball ability and while Young may have a higher ceiling than Chevy, there's no way Young is a better college bball player.
Krauser is light years better than Robinson.
Graves is a little better than Jones. Better shooter, better defender.
Artis is better than the 3s.
Taft is light years better.
Other than Taft.... that group of players all generally played close to their ceiling, as far as talent goes.
On this team.... only Robinson and Jones have played close to their ceiling lately. Young and Artis have potential to be better than their 2005 counterparts... if the lightbulb ever clicks on for them, which I increasingly doubt.
And, again, talent is not just the starting five when you say the TEAM is more or equal talent. Jeter, Luther, Cam John and Wilson are much more talented than that what that fairly shallow team had coming of the bench.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Recruiting Article Delalic on Pitt commitment: 'I just felt it'- Latest: MIXED_PANTHER#1
-
-
-
