Big Men in ACC MBB

57jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,474
All the best teams in the ACC have a dominant big man. Check it out. Clemson, UNC, Duke, NCS, all have excellent bigs. This is our biggest problem. Some say playmakers, and yes, we could use one, but without a big, his help would be limited. Our opponents ignore our inside game, and it makes it much harder to score. AND defend opponents big. Franklin did a great job last game , which one wonders why he didn't see more playing time earlier. Of course the Princeton offense is, in my very humble opinion, is a disaster. Anyway, any new coach's first job is to find a good big FR or transfer.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,036
57jacket said:
All the best teams in the ACC have a dominant big man. Check it out. Clemson, UNC, Duke, NCS, all have excellent bigs. This is our biggest problem. Some say playmakers, and yes, we could use one, but without a big, his help would be limited. Our opponents ignore our inside game, and it makes it much harder to score. AND defend opponents big. Franklin did a great job last game , which one wonders why he didn't see more playing time earlier. Of course the Princeton offense is, in my very humble opinion, is a disaster. Anyway, any new coach's first job is to find a good big FR or transfer.
Click to expand...
I would take an average big below two excellent guards who can both shoot and drive
 
Connell62

Connell62

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,092
Steverc said:
What would be the strategy in convincing a top big man to come to GT? Is it just money?
Click to expand...
Good big men are in high demand, and for one that’s gonna move the needle, it will cost you.

I feel pretty confident in saying that we wouldn’t get a James Banks type today without some type of NIL incentive. Too many other programs offering those types of bags for them to say no.
 
Techster

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,235
Connell62 said:
Good big men are in high demand, and for one that’s gonna move the needle, it will cost you.

I feel pretty confident in saying that we wouldn’t get a James Banks type today without some type of NIL incentive. Too many other programs offering those types of bags for them to say no.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in this day and age of NIL and free transfers, even if we recruited a good big man and developed him into a Lammers or Wright, GT may have to pony up NIL $$$ money to keep him. Either way you splice it (development vs transfer in), GT is probably looking at having to pay to either keep or get a big man. IMO, the best way to minimize the impact of NIL would have been the NCAA keeping the sit 1 year rule for transfers. SAs still get to transfer wherever they want without the coach or school they're at having to sign off, but if a school really wants a kid they'll have pay him to sit for year. That year also shouldn't count against an SAs 4 years of eligibility.

The fortunate thing is Cabrera made it a point during the AD hiring process that he wanted an AD that would help GT with the challenges of NIL...translation: in order for GT to compete, Cabrera knows GT will need an NIL arm in order to compete at this level. We're no longer putting our head in the sand as the winds of change is blowing across the landscape. Now whether Batt successfully puts together a competitive NIL program is another story, but at least we are acknowledging the realities and trying to do something about it.
 
Connell62

Connell62

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,092
Techster said:
Unfortunately, in this day and age of NIL and free transfers, even if we recruited a good big man and developed him into a Lammers or Wright, GT may have to pony up NIL $$$ money to keep him. Either way you splice it (development vs transfer in), GT is probably looking at having to pay to either keep or get a big man. IMO, the best way to minimize the impact of NIL would have been the NCAA keeping the sit 1 year rule for transfers. SAs still get to transfer wherever they want without the coach or school they're at having to sign off, but if a school really wants a kid they'll have pay him to sit for year. That year also shouldn't count against an SAs 4 years of eligibility.

The fortunate thing is Cabrera made it a point during the AD hiring process that he wanted an AD that would help GT with the challenges of NIL...translation: in order for GT to compete, Cabrera knows GT will need an NIL arm in order to compete at this level. We're no longer putting our head in the sand as the winds of change is blowing across the landscape. Now whether Batt successfully puts together a competitive NIL program is another story, but at least we are acknowledging the realities and trying to do something about it.
Click to expand...
Please understand that my skepticism isn’t aimed at you, I agree with all you said, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
 
Techster

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,235
Connell62 said:
Please understand that my skepticism isn’t aimed at you, I agree with all you said, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...

100%. It's part and parcel with being a GT fan...getting our hopes up, and seeing it dashed by reality. We'll see...Cabrera said a LOT of really good things during the HFC search and after it, but delivering on it is the hardest part.
 
Jetdrive3

Jetdrive3

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
211
Location
The mountains of Georgia
57jacket said:
All the best teams in the ACC have a dominant big man. Check it out. Clemson, UNC, Duke, NCS, all have excellent bigs. This is our biggest problem. Some say playmakers, and yes, we could use one, but without a big, his help would be limited. Our opponents ignore our inside game, and it makes it much harder to score. AND defend opponents big. Franklin did a great job last game , which one wonders why he didn't see more playing time earlier. Of course the Princeton offense is, in my very humble opinion, is a disaster. Anyway, any new coach's first job is to find a good big FR or transfer.
Click to expand...
Preach!
 

mstranahan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,561
UNC's "excellent big men" have led preseason #1 nationally to a 15-9 record and 9th place in the ACC

Duke's "excellent big men" have similarly taken top 10 preseason to 17-7 and 6th in the ACC

Pitt, UVA & Miami have decent bigs, but nothing spectacular, yet they are all in top 4 in the confrence
 

57jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,474
mstranahan said:
UNC's "excellent big men" have led preseason #1 nationally to a 15-9 record and 9th place in the ACC

Duke's "excellent big men" have similarly taken top 10 preseason to 17-7 and 6th in the ACC

Pitt, UVA & Miami have decent bigs, but nothing spectacular, yet they are all in top 4 in the confrence
Click to expand...
LOL. And UVA, Pitt, & Miami are far better than us. What's your point? You would not want one of the Duke, UNC Bigs? LMAO
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
57jacket said:
LOL. And UVA, Pitt, & Miami are far better than us. What's your point? You would not want one of the Duke, UNC Bigs? LMAO
Click to expand...


The point seems pretty obvious as a rebuttal to the statement "All the best teams in the ACC have a dominant big man" when 3 of the top 4 have decent but not spectacular bigs.
 

57jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,474
lv20gt said:
The point seems pretty obvious as a rebuttal to the statement "All the best teams in the ACC have a dominant big man" when 3 of the top 4 have decent but not spectacular bigs.
Click to expand...
You didn't want me to say "best"? LOL. Then I'll edit to say much better than US. How's that?
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
57jacket said:
You didn't want me to say "best"? LOL. Then I'll edit to say much better than US. How's that?
Click to expand...

I don't want to blatantly misrepresent that actual situation to make a point that isn't true. No, not "All the best teams in the ACC have a dominant big man". That is simply not true, and 3 of the 4 top teams in conference currently do not have a dominating big man. I used quotes because it was your exact words. You then ignored most of the actual top teams in favor of 3 teams below them two of which are pretty clearly middle of the pack teams because they were the ones that would have what could be argued as dominant bigs (and even then Burns isn't a dominant force for NCSU).

The play of our bigs this year has been a weakness, and a big reason for that is asking them to do things that don't suit their skill set. But no, we don't need a dominant big to have success, and it's just a lie to say all the best teams have a dominant big.
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,915
Jetdrive3 said:
Tech’s best guy in the middle is Franklin at 6’7”. Talented fellow, but against 6’10” it is too much to ask. You have to have big guys in the ACC or you become this year’s GT.
Click to expand...
And it really showed against Duke with their 2 seven footers. Forces us to shoot the three but that only works with decent looks. Our shooters were in a slump for several games and we paid for it. The offense we run now is better for our smaller line up and guys are shooting the ball better now. Franklin has done extremely well against larger opponents but he can only do so much with a height disadvantage.
 
Top