Young and Artis
- Thread starter gary2
- Start date
Reply
Neither is likely to make the necessary improvement needed to make a significant major step forward without another "big" [or 2] that can factor into the equation. To me it looks like Young would very much like to play further away from the basket. Notice all his outside shots today? He does not enjoy playing defense and defensive rebounding against the real 5's which he encounters. Artis does not seem to care for defense at all. Probably will go over like a lead balloon....but with the type of kids Jamie has on this team--I think his favored man-to-man defense probably needs to be shelved for zone. I honestly think for this team to be more than 2 or 3 conference wins better next year....there will have to be MAJOR improvement on the interior defense...which I do not see coming from the kids we saw on the floor this season. Hail to Pitt!
Neither is likely to make the necessary improvement needed to make a significant major step forward without another "big" [or 2] that can factor into the equation. To me it looks like Young would very much like to play further away from the basket. Notice all his outside shots today? He does not enjoy playing defense and defensive rebounding against the real 5's which he encounters. Artis does not seem to care for defense at all. Probably will go over like a lead balloon....but with the type of kids Jamie has on this team--I think his favored man-to-man defense probably needs to be shelved for zone. I honestly think for this team to be more than 2 or 3 conference wins better next year....there will have to be MAJOR improvement on the interior defense...which I do not see coming from the kids we saw on the floor this season. Hail to Pitt!
Kind in mind ...
... Virginia has smaller post guys than us and their defensive execution in the post is not lacking.
No one in College Basketball in 2004 defended Emeka Okafor better than 6-7 Chevy Troutman.
Don't disagree with the notion of zone though ... it would seem to serve a long group such as Young - Artis - Johnson - Jones and Robinson.
Maybe in some sense, we are saying the same thing -- that we have enough size to get the job done, but not enough want.
Also ... I'm confused with this comment: "To me it looks like Young would very much like to play further away from the basket. Notice all his outside shots today? He does not enjoy playing defense and defensive rebounding against the real 5's which he encounters."
The outside shots have little to do with playing defense and rebounding against "real 5's."
Mike has already proven that he IS an effective low post scorer THIS year. And he'll be better next year. The outside shots are just another wonderful piece of his offensive equation. Think of Rik Smits.
By far, our biggest problem with defense had so much less to do with post defense as it did with guarding dribble penetration.
... Virginia has smaller post guys than us and their defensive execution in the post is not lacking.
No one in College Basketball in 2004 defended Emeka Okafor better than 6-7 Chevy Troutman.
Don't disagree with the notion of zone though ... it would seem to serve a long group such as Young - Artis - Johnson - Jones and Robinson.
Maybe in some sense, we are saying the same thing -- that we have enough size to get the job done, but not enough want.
Also ... I'm confused with this comment: "To me it looks like Young would very much like to play further away from the basket. Notice all his outside shots today? He does not enjoy playing defense and defensive rebounding against the real 5's which he encounters."
The outside shots have little to do with playing defense and rebounding against "real 5's."
Mike has already proven that he IS an effective low post scorer THIS year. And he'll be better next year. The outside shots are just another wonderful piece of his offensive equation. Think of Rik Smits.
By far, our biggest problem with defense had so much less to do with post defense as it did with guarding dribble penetration.
Reply
It's not just me...even the announcers and anyone other than you and a couple of the hard corp staunchly suggest Young is a 5-- say he is playing out of position. I'm not just judging based upon height...I'm looking at body type....skills rebounding....as well as what the 5 needs to do on offense and defense for Dixon's scheme, etc. Young simply is not disruptive at all on defense....unlike the normal 5 on most teams. Using Troutman or Blair as examples is citing to the exception to the rule to attempt to prove a point. Both Chevy and Blair were very physical, big boys...and Blair had the reach of a 7 footer according to a number of people. Not many regular top 30 programs attempt to play with such undersized and non-physical 5's [at least those playing the style of ball Dixon favors].
Today Young was matched up against a number of 7 footers. His defense was awful...he appeared frustrated and tired...and just not doing well. So instead of playing inside on offense...he kept gravitating outside, trying to avoid the big boys. While our guards are clearly challenged on defense too...my view is not having a defensive presence or disruption in the paint...only further magnifies the problem. Hail to Pitt!
It's not just me...even the announcers and anyone other than you and a couple of the hard corp staunchly suggest Young is a 5-- say he is playing out of position. I'm not just judging based upon height...I'm looking at body type....skills rebounding....as well as what the 5 needs to do on offense and defense for Dixon's scheme, etc. Young simply is not disruptive at all on defense....unlike the normal 5 on most teams. Using Troutman or Blair as examples is citing to the exception to the rule to attempt to prove a point. Both Chevy and Blair were very physical, big boys...and Blair had the reach of a 7 footer according to a number of people. Not many regular top 30 programs attempt to play with such undersized and non-physical 5's [at least those playing the style of ball Dixon favors].
Today Young was matched up against a number of 7 footers. His defense was awful...he appeared frustrated and tired...and just not doing well. So instead of playing inside on offense...he kept gravitating outside, trying to avoid the big boys. While our guards are clearly challenged on defense too...my view is not having a defensive presence or disruption in the paint...only further magnifies the problem. Hail to Pitt!
OK ... you are the coach ...
.... and to your point ... you have Pitt's roster.
But with two exceptions.
First, you have Gary McGhee (a true center by anyone's definition). And Cam Johnson is not on the roster.
So that's your 13 players. (Well ... no Durand Johnson of course.)
Please explain how you would distribute minutes by position and the expected benefits you would expect on both ends by having a "true center."
Please be specific.
This post was edited on 3/8 12:42 AM by DT_PITT
.... and to your point ... you have Pitt's roster.
But with two exceptions.
First, you have Gary McGhee (a true center by anyone's definition). And Cam Johnson is not on the roster.
So that's your 13 players. (Well ... no Durand Johnson of course.)
Please explain how you would distribute minutes by position and the expected benefits you would expect on both ends by having a "true center."
Please be specific.
This post was edited on 3/8 12:42 AM by DT_PITT
Re: OK ... you are the coach ...
DT, I tend to agree with Pittlaw. I think Mike Young is a good ballplayer and effective center against teams with average frontcourts but he struggles a good bit against most teams with a strong front court. And it is usually evident in his demeanor when playing against strong frontcourts. That's whyI think we could really benefit from help at the 5.
But you really confuse me here with yourlast reply. I always thought your stance was that Mike was always more than a good enough 5. But now it seems you are claiming that more so just because it messes up playing time distributions by moving him to the 4 and not so much on how effective he is as 5.
I can't agree with you on that stance and if anything it just highlights the priblems with our roster imbalance.
DT, I tend to agree with Pittlaw. I think Mike Young is a good ballplayer and effective center against teams with average frontcourts but he struggles a good bit against most teams with a strong front court. And it is usually evident in his demeanor when playing against strong frontcourts. That's whyI think we could really benefit from help at the 5.
But you really confuse me here with yourlast reply. I always thought your stance was that Mike was always more than a good enough 5. But now it seems you are claiming that more so just because it messes up playing time distributions by moving him to the 4 and not so much on how effective he is as 5.
I can't agree with you on that stance and if anything it just highlights the priblems with our roster imbalance.
Not quite ...
.... Pittlaw has maintained that we need a "true center."
So I am simply presenting a scenario where a "true center" is available, and I would want to see how this team would be better with such a scenario.
Would this team be better with a truly GREAT center? ("True" or not)? Sure. What team wouldn't be? If Steve Adams was still here, this team would look much different of course. Patrick Ewing? No doubt.
But knowing the talent that DOES exist on this team, I'm curious how a "true" center (however -- not a "great" center) would benefit this team.
My suggestion is that this team's biggest problems are not at the five. I believe Mike has filled this role well. He has been a very effective scorer in the low post, and stepping out to hit the jumper only adds to his effectiveness. This is true of many very good centers.
And even if Steve Adams was here, his presence would come at a cost to other players or other skills that do exist.
Or, to my example, if Gary McGhee was here, his playing time would come at a cost to other players or other skills that do exist.
First and foremost, is Jamel Artis. Jamel proved very clearly early in this season that he was not effective, either offensively or defensively at the three (he's also not effective defensively at the four, but that's for another day).
So if Gary McGhee was here as a "true center," I'm curious to know the benefit of having him playing the lion's share of the minutes at the five, and Mike playing the four.
Mike is already very effective offensively playing the five, and it's hard to see the additional offensive benefit it would bring if he has playing the four. Would he score more playing the four? And if so, would Jamel still be as effective as he is playing most of his time at the three. And accordingly, where would other scoring fit, from players such as Sheldon or Chris. And knowing how poorly Jamel defended the three early on (worse that he defends the four), would that help this team? Keep in mind that this team played at it's best with Jamel playing the four.
Mike is a fair defender at the five, but I would suggest that the net gain of having a better defender at the five is not the biggest issue for this collective group. Their biggest problem is not being able to control dribble penetration, which most often doesn't involve the five or four spots.
Pittlaw will appreciate this one -- Charles Smith was NOT a true five. Not at all, actually. But he eventually played the five because it was better to have him there, with Jerome Lane (not a true power forward at all) at the four.
This post was edited on 3/8 1:52 AM by DT_PITT
.... Pittlaw has maintained that we need a "true center."
So I am simply presenting a scenario where a "true center" is available, and I would want to see how this team would be better with such a scenario.
Would this team be better with a truly GREAT center? ("True" or not)? Sure. What team wouldn't be? If Steve Adams was still here, this team would look much different of course. Patrick Ewing? No doubt.
But knowing the talent that DOES exist on this team, I'm curious how a "true" center (however -- not a "great" center) would benefit this team.
My suggestion is that this team's biggest problems are not at the five. I believe Mike has filled this role well. He has been a very effective scorer in the low post, and stepping out to hit the jumper only adds to his effectiveness. This is true of many very good centers.
And even if Steve Adams was here, his presence would come at a cost to other players or other skills that do exist.
Or, to my example, if Gary McGhee was here, his playing time would come at a cost to other players or other skills that do exist.
First and foremost, is Jamel Artis. Jamel proved very clearly early in this season that he was not effective, either offensively or defensively at the three (he's also not effective defensively at the four, but that's for another day).
So if Gary McGhee was here as a "true center," I'm curious to know the benefit of having him playing the lion's share of the minutes at the five, and Mike playing the four.
Mike is already very effective offensively playing the five, and it's hard to see the additional offensive benefit it would bring if he has playing the four. Would he score more playing the four? And if so, would Jamel still be as effective as he is playing most of his time at the three. And accordingly, where would other scoring fit, from players such as Sheldon or Chris. And knowing how poorly Jamel defended the three early on (worse that he defends the four), would that help this team? Keep in mind that this team played at it's best with Jamel playing the four.
Mike is a fair defender at the five, but I would suggest that the net gain of having a better defender at the five is not the biggest issue for this collective group. Their biggest problem is not being able to control dribble penetration, which most often doesn't involve the five or four spots.
Pittlaw will appreciate this one -- Charles Smith was NOT a true five. Not at all, actually. But he eventually played the five because it was better to have him there, with Jerome Lane (not a true power forward at all) at the four.
This post was edited on 3/8 1:52 AM by DT_PITT
I think it's safe to say we all like Mike Young. He's only a sophomore, has good feet, nifty moves, is a threat outside the paint, can drive to the rack, battles on defense, and continues to improve.
Individually, Mike sometimes has difficulty powering up against competition at the basket. If he doesn't have time to fake and make a post move(s), his shot often is altered by the better ACC big men. He's simply not as explosive or as long as some others against whom he competes. Again, that doesn't make him a bad player, but it is a limitation much as it was for Zanna.
You don't necessarily have to pair Mike with a "true center" for team success, but at least another decent forward with size could help a lot with rebounding, defending big frontcourts, keeping some double-teams and help side blockers away from Mike on offense, and even spelling Mike when he needs a rest or is in foul trouble. All these were issues this year.
If we see improvement (shooting and defense) next year at the two and three (Durand, Wilson, CJohnson, Jones, et al.), I actually could see Artis as a sixth man in many games. I know lots of folks are enamored with Artis, but he really is a limited talent right now (not multidimensional). He doesn't have a strong handle on the ball, is not a strong driver, can't guard one-on-one, and is lost in zone and help defense. Of course, all this can change in the offseason and I hope it does.
This post was edited on 3/8 4:52 AM by TreesHero
Individually, Mike sometimes has difficulty powering up against competition at the basket. If he doesn't have time to fake and make a post move(s), his shot often is altered by the better ACC big men. He's simply not as explosive or as long as some others against whom he competes. Again, that doesn't make him a bad player, but it is a limitation much as it was for Zanna.
You don't necessarily have to pair Mike with a "true center" for team success, but at least another decent forward with size could help a lot with rebounding, defending big frontcourts, keeping some double-teams and help side blockers away from Mike on offense, and even spelling Mike when he needs a rest or is in foul trouble. All these were issues this year.
If we see improvement (shooting and defense) next year at the two and three (Durand, Wilson, CJohnson, Jones, et al.), I actually could see Artis as a sixth man in many games. I know lots of folks are enamored with Artis, but he really is a limited talent right now (not multidimensional). He doesn't have a strong handle on the ball, is not a strong driver, can't guard one-on-one, and is lost in zone and help defense. Of course, all this can change in the offseason and I hope it does.
This post was edited on 3/8 4:52 AM by TreesHero
Having an effective center doesn't mean that he gets all the inside touches. Someone who can rebound and putbacks on offense and on defense erase a lot of the defensive lapses with their presence along with rebounding is all that is needed. Watching M Young at Montour all I saw was a guy who could run up and down the court ,could shoot, pass ,handle the ball he looked more like a 3 than a 5 especially with his body transformation. Playing against bigger stronger guys also takes a toll on body and energy throughout a long season. Pitt would have been better this season had they had a true 5 who could defend and rebound other than M Young he's a 4 maybe a 31/2 not a five. Pitt will be better next season if Nix can be that man freeing up MYoung to move him to his more natural position for 20/25 minutes.
The forwards just don't like contact. Jeter started up the court while a shot was on its way, leaving a void which was filled quickly by an FSU guy who promptly put back a missed shot. Pitt is too soft and won't box out, must be afraid of contact sorry to say.
Reply
Do I have to continue to pretend Mike Young is a Center? Not sure why it is so important to you....but ask any annalyst or person that is a basketball scout...Young is not a center...nor does he have any possible future playing professionally at that position. So if you would at least admit that he is playing there for Pitt because of Dixon's failure to recruit a 5 that can actually make the court...I'll play your game.
I'd play the mythical Gary at 5....for DEFENSE...not for offense [which is why he made the floor any way during his career]. I'd spell Gary with a combination of Aron [only because we need someone], Uchebo [against slow teams where his lack of mobility could be hidden a bit] and Randall. In a perfect world, my roster would not have guys like Aron, Joe or Derrick taking up space on my bench--but that gets back to recruiting failures/problems.
I'd play Young at 4 primarily. I would sub Luther for Young. I'd play Artis, Johnson, Jones at 3. Jeter would probably get time at both 4 and 3 depending on the opponent. The guards would be what we have. Of course all of this would be premised upon not playing man-to-man defense...as after 32 games, I'm convinced these kids either do not have the ability to play it the way Dixon wants [they seem a step slow or so to me]...or do not have the desire to do so [which I think is the bigger problem]. I'd go almost exclusively 2-3 as my base defense...and mix in a bit of 1-3-1 or box and 1 as change ups depending on who we are playing. With that rag tag line up...I believe Pitt may have picked up 2 or 3 more conference wins.
Of course the elephant in the room is that Dixon has failed miserably at recruiting for several classes. If we can acknowledge the elephant...then I'd focus on how we are going to line up next season...as this year is over Johnny. Hail to Pitt!
Do I have to continue to pretend Mike Young is a Center? Not sure why it is so important to you....but ask any annalyst or person that is a basketball scout...Young is not a center...nor does he have any possible future playing professionally at that position. So if you would at least admit that he is playing there for Pitt because of Dixon's failure to recruit a 5 that can actually make the court...I'll play your game.
I'd play the mythical Gary at 5....for DEFENSE...not for offense [which is why he made the floor any way during his career]. I'd spell Gary with a combination of Aron [only because we need someone], Uchebo [against slow teams where his lack of mobility could be hidden a bit] and Randall. In a perfect world, my roster would not have guys like Aron, Joe or Derrick taking up space on my bench--but that gets back to recruiting failures/problems.
I'd play Young at 4 primarily. I would sub Luther for Young. I'd play Artis, Johnson, Jones at 3. Jeter would probably get time at both 4 and 3 depending on the opponent. The guards would be what we have. Of course all of this would be premised upon not playing man-to-man defense...as after 32 games, I'm convinced these kids either do not have the ability to play it the way Dixon wants [they seem a step slow or so to me]...or do not have the desire to do so [which I think is the bigger problem]. I'd go almost exclusively 2-3 as my base defense...and mix in a bit of 1-3-1 or box and 1 as change ups depending on who we are playing. With that rag tag line up...I believe Pitt may have picked up 2 or 3 more conference wins.
Of course the elephant in the room is that Dixon has failed miserably at recruiting for several classes. If we can acknowledge the elephant...then I'd focus on how we are going to line up next season...as this year is over Johnny. Hail to Pitt!
DT .... Reply .....
- I think most would agree that our biggest problems this year are defense and rebounding.
- Stopping dribble penetration is a big part of the problem on defense but far from the only problem as our help/rotation defense is terrible and our guarding at the 3 and 4 positions is bad..... and rebounding is not what it needs to be.
- The question is not whether Young can play the 5 or not as he can play the 5 but he can also play the 4 ..... the problem is that we need better depth and players overall at the 4 and 5 position in addition to Mike and especially need to get better on defense and rebounding and if someone new at the 4 or 5 can also score all the better. Young's help at the 4 and 5 position, Haughton, Randall, Uchebo, and defensively Artis are just not good enough IMO..... recruiting a 4 or 5 like Gray, Big Fella, Adams, Troutman, or even McGhee would help this team significantly on defense and/or rebounding and/or offense depending on the player.... missing on recruiting good 4 and 5's has hurt us IMO.
- IMO we also need a guard who can dribble penetrate and guards who can defend dribble penetration although slowing down dribble penetration may be more a team defense problem..... playing the high ball screen, etc.
- Minutes (these minutes could be tweaked and depending on the lineup whether we play man or zone).....
5 = Gray/Big Fella/Adams/McGhee (one of them and of course getting the best player we can is important) - 30 minutes, Young - 10 minutes
4 = Young - 20, Artis 15-20, someone else 5
3 = Artis 10-15, Jeter 15-20, Wright 10
2 = Jones 20, Wright 10-15, Newkirk 5-10
1 = Robinson 30, Newkirk 10
If you get a Chevy Troutman or another really good 4, then Young can play more 5 and less 4.
This post was edited on 3/8 11:31 AM by goalieman
- I think most would agree that our biggest problems this year are defense and rebounding.
- Stopping dribble penetration is a big part of the problem on defense but far from the only problem as our help/rotation defense is terrible and our guarding at the 3 and 4 positions is bad..... and rebounding is not what it needs to be.
- The question is not whether Young can play the 5 or not as he can play the 5 but he can also play the 4 ..... the problem is that we need better depth and players overall at the 4 and 5 position in addition to Mike and especially need to get better on defense and rebounding and if someone new at the 4 or 5 can also score all the better. Young's help at the 4 and 5 position, Haughton, Randall, Uchebo, and defensively Artis are just not good enough IMO..... recruiting a 4 or 5 like Gray, Big Fella, Adams, Troutman, or even McGhee would help this team significantly on defense and/or rebounding and/or offense depending on the player.... missing on recruiting good 4 and 5's has hurt us IMO.
- IMO we also need a guard who can dribble penetrate and guards who can defend dribble penetration although slowing down dribble penetration may be more a team defense problem..... playing the high ball screen, etc.
- Minutes (these minutes could be tweaked and depending on the lineup whether we play man or zone).....
5 = Gray/Big Fella/Adams/McGhee (one of them and of course getting the best player we can is important) - 30 minutes, Young - 10 minutes
4 = Young - 20, Artis 15-20, someone else 5
3 = Artis 10-15, Jeter 15-20, Wright 10
2 = Jones 20, Wright 10-15, Newkirk 5-10
1 = Robinson 30, Newkirk 10
If you get a Chevy Troutman or another really good 4, then Young can play more 5 and less 4.
This post was edited on 3/8 11:31 AM by goalieman
Re: Kind in mind ...
UVA is a terrible example. Tobey and Atkins provide a very good inside presence. They are clearly bigger and stronger than what we have. You can take an inch or two off everyone's program height on our roster, and it is clear we have nobody that provides a true inside presence on the defensive end.
This post was edited on 3/8 11:36 AM by Piranha
UVA is a terrible example. Tobey and Atkins provide a very good inside presence. They are clearly bigger and stronger than what we have. You can take an inch or two off everyone's program height on our roster, and it is clear we have nobody that provides a true inside presence on the defensive end.
This post was edited on 3/8 11:36 AM by Piranha
Re: DT .... Reply .....
The game was Gary McGhee -- so here's what I'd go with:
5. 20 minutes for Gary and 20 for Mike (please recall that Gary only averaged 23 MPG as a senior).
4. 10 minutes for Mike and 30 minutes for Jamel.
I'd play the 1-2-3 pretty much the way we are playing them now.
Having a "true" center like Gary would help by not requiring us to play Derrick, Joe or Aron at the five. When we are playing any of these three, we are just trying to survive.
Gary would be a really good defensive option, something that Derrick and Joe are not (Aron can be OK).
And I wouldn't be playing Gary because he's a "true" center, but because he was a pretty darn good defensive center.
But Gary was nowhere near the low post scorer that Mike is. And of course, he didn't have a face up game.
I believe this rotation would still provide for the minutes Mike and Jamel should get, and wouldn't restrict their offensive production.
Gary would improve the defense, and give some flexibility to play a little different at times (bigger or smaller).
But at this point in his career, Jamel needs to play at the four. Putting him at the three makes our defense and offense worse. That's already been demonstrated.
The game was Gary McGhee -- so here's what I'd go with:
5. 20 minutes for Gary and 20 for Mike (please recall that Gary only averaged 23 MPG as a senior).
4. 10 minutes for Mike and 30 minutes for Jamel.
I'd play the 1-2-3 pretty much the way we are playing them now.
Having a "true" center like Gary would help by not requiring us to play Derrick, Joe or Aron at the five. When we are playing any of these three, we are just trying to survive.
Gary would be a really good defensive option, something that Derrick and Joe are not (Aron can be OK).
And I wouldn't be playing Gary because he's a "true" center, but because he was a pretty darn good defensive center.
But Gary was nowhere near the low post scorer that Mike is. And of course, he didn't have a face up game.
I believe this rotation would still provide for the minutes Mike and Jamel should get, and wouldn't restrict their offensive production.
Gary would improve the defense, and give some flexibility to play a little different at times (bigger or smaller).
But at this point in his career, Jamel needs to play at the four. Putting him at the three makes our defense and offense worse. That's already been demonstrated.
Re: Reply
The recruiting miss was the guy they got who didn't pan out -- Malcolm Gilbert. Having him to play 20 minutes at the five (had he developed) would help this team. I think the bigger recruiting "miss" has been finding perimeter defenders, and/or dribble penetrators on the offensive end.
So your rotation would mean more minutes for Joe/Derrick/Aron that they get now (as Gary only averaged 23-24 MPG as junior senior) and more minutes for Ryan Luther -- but significantly less minutes for Jamel, Chris and Sheldon?
The recruiting miss was the guy they got who didn't pan out -- Malcolm Gilbert. Having him to play 20 minutes at the five (had he developed) would help this team. I think the bigger recruiting "miss" has been finding perimeter defenders, and/or dribble penetrators on the offensive end.
So your rotation would mean more minutes for Joe/Derrick/Aron that they get now (as Gary only averaged 23-24 MPG as junior senior) and more minutes for Ryan Luther -- but significantly less minutes for Jamel, Chris and Sheldon?
Reply
Just like Jamie, my PT would be handed out based upon performance. If Luther had an opportunity in ACC play this year....who knows what he would have done? His defense could not possibly have been worse than what we saw from Artis...and Jamel would have been at the 3 any way based upon my scenario. Notice how Jeter played much better in February once given a chance to play in ACC games? The J/D/A guys saw spotty minutes and were not given consistent opportunity during ACC play. If you do not have guys on the bench for not playing defense...what weapon does the coach have?
But as I've said all season long since I saw this team struggle versus IUP....they are very flawed. The flaws are and must be owned by Dixon and his staff. I'm not convinced there is enough new blood coming in for next season to be a whole lot better? Frankly, Dixon did a great job getting as many wins out of these guys as he did. But at some point...considering where the program was...you have to expect Dixon to deliver better players and athletes which yield even better results. Jamie's stock is certainly trending downward...I'm not buying nor am I selling...but next season will be important for me in taking the hold off the stock. Hail to Pitt!
Just like Jamie, my PT would be handed out based upon performance. If Luther had an opportunity in ACC play this year....who knows what he would have done? His defense could not possibly have been worse than what we saw from Artis...and Jamel would have been at the 3 any way based upon my scenario. Notice how Jeter played much better in February once given a chance to play in ACC games? The J/D/A guys saw spotty minutes and were not given consistent opportunity during ACC play. If you do not have guys on the bench for not playing defense...what weapon does the coach have?
But as I've said all season long since I saw this team struggle versus IUP....they are very flawed. The flaws are and must be owned by Dixon and his staff. I'm not convinced there is enough new blood coming in for next season to be a whole lot better? Frankly, Dixon did a great job getting as many wins out of these guys as he did. But at some point...considering where the program was...you have to expect Dixon to deliver better players and athletes which yield even better results. Jamie's stock is certainly trending downward...I'm not buying nor am I selling...but next season will be important for me in taking the hold off the stock. Hail to Pitt!
Re: DT .... Reply .....
The game was Gary McGhee but we have had Taft, Gray, Big Fella, and Adams at center ........ we have recruited good/NBA type centers in the past and if any of these centers were on the roster, Young's minutes at the 5 would be reduced and his minutes at the 4 increased..... and we would have a better team.... IMO, we would have a better team with McGhee on the team ..... again, the question you are really asking is would we better off with or without Gary McGhee .... to me the answer is better off..... and we would be much better off with Adams at center and Young playing between the 4 and 5. We have been unsuccessful recruiting talented 5's (and enough 4's) recently and it is a problem that needs to be corrected.
Offensively, Artis can score from anywhere on the court and his shot selection is more like a 3 then our typical 4 .... why can't he get these shots out of the 3 position ? ...... in my scenario, Jamal could play the 4 for 20 min and the 3 for 10 ....... defensively he is very poor wherever he plays but if worse at the 3, Pitt would have to play zone for most of the 10 minutes he plays the 3.
It would be interesting to have one of the metric guys on here figure out each players +/- as if you score 17 points a game and give up 20, that is worse then if you score 8 and give up 6..... those stats would be interesting.
We desperately need a guard who can dribble penetrate and we need to be able to defend dribble penetration better, these are huge problems but we are not good defending at any position and our help/rotation defense is poor and our rebound substandard for what we need. We need a lot of help and also need to hope the players we already have improve significantly.
The game was Gary McGhee but we have had Taft, Gray, Big Fella, and Adams at center ........ we have recruited good/NBA type centers in the past and if any of these centers were on the roster, Young's minutes at the 5 would be reduced and his minutes at the 4 increased..... and we would have a better team.... IMO, we would have a better team with McGhee on the team ..... again, the question you are really asking is would we better off with or without Gary McGhee .... to me the answer is better off..... and we would be much better off with Adams at center and Young playing between the 4 and 5. We have been unsuccessful recruiting talented 5's (and enough 4's) recently and it is a problem that needs to be corrected.
Offensively, Artis can score from anywhere on the court and his shot selection is more like a 3 then our typical 4 .... why can't he get these shots out of the 3 position ? ...... in my scenario, Jamal could play the 4 for 20 min and the 3 for 10 ....... defensively he is very poor wherever he plays but if worse at the 3, Pitt would have to play zone for most of the 10 minutes he plays the 3.
It would be interesting to have one of the metric guys on here figure out each players +/- as if you score 17 points a game and give up 20, that is worse then if you score 8 and give up 6..... those stats would be interesting.
We desperately need a guard who can dribble penetrate and we need to be able to defend dribble penetration better, these are huge problems but we are not good defending at any position and our help/rotation defense is poor and our rebound substandard for what we need. We need a lot of help and also need to hope the players we already have improve significantly.
Re: DT .... Reply .....
Earlier in the year, Jamel was not effective at 3. He couldn't get open against the typically faster players he was opposing. More importantly, he couldn't defend quicker 3's. Then again, he's not exactly defending 4's very well either.
DT and others have made the same point regarding Young at 4. He has hit some jump shots in the past few games but until the final quarter if the season, virtually all of his points were in the paint, posting up against bigger, slower centers. Mike has defended centers pretty well. Again, his defensive issue have generally been when switched onto smaller, quicker guys. Mike is still shooting nit that much better from 3-pt range than Cam Wright.
You can go onto www.statsheet/mcb/players/and compare most players current and past. If their +/- numbers are correct, only Josh from the regular rotation is negative. Our offensive rating is so much better than the defensive rating and the major players play similar number of minutes that individual results tend to blur together.
The point DT makes, and I tend to agree with us whether Young and Artis would as effective at 4 and 3 respectively as they are at 5 and 4?
Earlier in the year, Jamel was not effective at 3. He couldn't get open against the typically faster players he was opposing. More importantly, he couldn't defend quicker 3's. Then again, he's not exactly defending 4's very well either.
DT and others have made the same point regarding Young at 4. He has hit some jump shots in the past few games but until the final quarter if the season, virtually all of his points were in the paint, posting up against bigger, slower centers. Mike has defended centers pretty well. Again, his defensive issue have generally been when switched onto smaller, quicker guys. Mike is still shooting nit that much better from 3-pt range than Cam Wright.
You can go onto www.statsheet/mcb/players/and compare most players current and past. If their +/- numbers are correct, only Josh from the regular rotation is negative. Our offensive rating is so much better than the defensive rating and the major players play similar number of minutes that individual results tend to blur together.
Re: DT .... Reply .....
In my scenario, Artis still plays the majority of his time at the 4 and when he plays the 3, we play mostly zone ..... I'd love to re-look at his offensive production for the 10 minutes he would play at the 3 ..... Jamie should be able to run sets that allow him to be successful.
I also agree with the HUGE need for a guard who can dribble penetrate and better defense against dribble penetration and much better help/rotation defense.
We really need to recruit better at the 5/4 and guard ..... and hope the players we have improve significantly ..... we have a great deal of work ahead of us.
Harve, my point is not arguing whether Young at the 5 and Artis at the 4 is better then Young at the 4 and Artis at the 3 .... rather whether having a quality center such as Gray, Big Fella, Adams, or even McGhee with Young playing the 5 and 4 and Artis playing the 4 and 10 minutes of the 3 is better then Young at the 5 and Artis at the 4..... IMO, having a top player (Adams/Gray/McGhee, etc.) at the 5, Young at the 5 and 4 and Artis at the 4 and some minutes at the 3 is a significantly better team then Young at the 5 and Artis at the 4..... would be a much better defensive and rebounding team..... and the help/rotation defense would be better which actually would probably make dribble penetration tougher for the opponent.... scoring would still be good.
In my scenario, Artis still plays the majority of his time at the 4 and when he plays the 3, we play mostly zone ..... I'd love to re-look at his offensive production for the 10 minutes he would play at the 3 ..... Jamie should be able to run sets that allow him to be successful.
I also agree with the HUGE need for a guard who can dribble penetrate and better defense against dribble penetration and much better help/rotation defense.
We really need to recruit better at the 5/4 and guard ..... and hope the players we have improve significantly ..... we have a great deal of work ahead of us.
Re: Not quite ...
I think you guys may be arguing the wrong point! We have zero impact players at guard. I have a hard time identifying who our best guard was this year.
All I can say is without a Brad Wannamaker, or Ashton Gibbs. or even Lamar who was more of a small forward our offense was to stagnant! Those last 3 games were painful to watch. I know our defense was bad, but our offense reverted back to its early season woes. When Mike and Jamel don't make a high percentage, we don't have a chance.
We just don't have any guards who can create off the dribble. None could shoot like Ashton either. Although Chris did win us that game at Syracuse with his outside shot.
Other than Mike in the post, we were nothing more than a jump shooting team!
We need better guard play, simple as that! I think the difference in our team being down lately is obviously the recruiting misses and transfers of those past classes. But to me, I would rather have one guard who could shoot and occasionally beat guys off the dribble and get to the hoop. So I would rather have Brad Wannamaker or Lamar, than Garry McGhee!
I think you guys may be arguing the wrong point! We have zero impact players at guard. I have a hard time identifying who our best guard was this year.
All I can say is without a Brad Wannamaker, or Ashton Gibbs. or even Lamar who was more of a small forward our offense was to stagnant! Those last 3 games were painful to watch. I know our defense was bad, but our offense reverted back to its early season woes. When Mike and Jamel don't make a high percentage, we don't have a chance.
We just don't have any guards who can create off the dribble. None could shoot like Ashton either. Although Chris did win us that game at Syracuse with his outside shot.
Other than Mike in the post, we were nothing more than a jump shooting team!
We need better guard play, simple as that! I think the difference in our team being down lately is obviously the recruiting misses and transfers of those past classes. But to me, I would rather have one guard who could shoot and occasionally beat guys off the dribble and get to the hoop. So I would rather have Brad Wannamaker or Lamar, than Garry McGhee!
Re: Not quite ...
I think a lot of the debate in the thread is about whether a quality center would help but you are right, we have a huge need for guards ...... 3 of my 1st 4 posts in this thread about a center also mention the desperate/HUGE need for better guards, so I agree with you.... look at our roster, we need to recruit better guards and better quality depth at the 5/4 IMO.
I completely agree ...
.... which in one of the reasons for this debate. Pittlaw has maintained that the lack of "true" five is this team's biggest problem.
I think this is low on the list.
We don't have guards who can create off the dribble, and we don't have perimeter players who can stop dribble penetration.
.... which in one of the reasons for this debate. Pittlaw has maintained that the lack of "true" five is this team's biggest problem.
I think this is low on the list.
We don't have guards who can create off the dribble, and we don't have perimeter players who can stop dribble penetration.
