GT (+7.5) vs. Miami

[lv20gt]

I agree.

So why is Banks getting so much more playing time than AD? Banks was 0-1 yesterday for zero points in 30 minutes of PT. Don't tell me it's for defense; we gave up 85 points. In fact, don't tell me defense will keep us in games; it didn't yesterday. (this commentary isn't directed at you gte).

Contrary to Mark Bradley's article, we aren't THAT devoid of talent.

Moore played 1 minute yesterday. Two starters, Banks and Sjolund, combined for 4 points..

Banks plays over AD because of shot blocking potential. It allows us to extend our zone a little and have a safety net of a shot blocker to either block or alter shots. Nobody else gives us that threat which is why Banks got 30 mins even having a bad game. Just because the defense didn't work doesn't mean him playing for defensive reasons isn't a sound argument. Anyways AD played 17 minutes. It's not like he got no burn and probably a reason he didn't get more was because 1, Wright was having a good game, and 2, AD is a senior and we're playing with an eye for the future.

And no, we aren't that devoid of talent. What we are devoid of talent that has experience playing, and playing together. We have 4 freshmen, 4 sophs, and 2 guys playing in their first year here in Banks and Phillips. Of guys that actually play only AD and Alston are upperclassmen who aren't in their first year playing here. AD is solid but not spectacular and Alston is no impact at best. We don't have super talent. We have solid talent that with experience should be pretty good. But we're missing half the equation right now.

 

[GT11]

Banks plays over AD because of shot blocking potential. It allows us to extend our zone a little and have a safety net of a shot blocker to either block or alter shots. Nobody else gives us that threat which is why Banks got 30 mins even having a bad game. Just because the defense didn't work doesn't mean him playing for defensive reasons isn't a sound argument. Anyways AD played 17 minutes. It's not like he got no burn and probably a reason he didn't get more was because 1, Wright was having a good game, and 2, AD is a senior and we're playing with an eye for the future.

And no, we aren't that devoid of talent. What we are devoid of talent that has experience playing, and playing together. We have 4 freshmen, 4 sophs, and 2 guys playing in their first year here in Banks and Phillips. Of guys that actually play only AD and Alston are upperclassmen who aren't in their first year playing here. AD is solid but not spectacular and Alston is no impact at best. We don't have super talent. We have solid talent that with experience should be pretty good. But we're missing half the equation right now.

Well said

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

FYI - Morrison didn’t have the money or facilities. Had to use camp money to recruit. Did have the knowledge. Dean, Knight and others called on a regular basis to pick his mind

That is why I asked - because we do have the conference, locale, facilities and recruiting ability now.

I actually really like CJP - a Lot. His youth, integrity, enthusiasm, work ethic. But it has to pay off.

No way am I saying he should be fired now, but I have no problem with a Petino - sort of. Definitely no problem with a Pearl.

As much as I like CJP, GT deserves to win / should win / and no reason we can not win.

 

[jacketup]

Just because the defense didn't work doesn't mean him playing for defensive reasons isn't a sound argument.

I don't believe you will find a lot of good teams starting a guy who plays 30 minutes and takes one shot and scores no points--just because of his defense.

AD is a senior and we're playing with an eye for the future.

If Banks is getting more time than AD because "we're playing with an eye for the future," wouldn't you get him the ball and have him work on his post moves/offensive game?
He took one shot.
If "we're playing with an eye for the future," wouldn't Moore have gotten more than 1 minute of playing time against Miami, while Alston got 11 minutes?

We have 4 freshmen, 4 sophs, and 2 guys playing in their first year here in Banks and Phillips. Of guys that actually play only AD and Alston are upperclassmen who aren't in their first year playing here. AD is solid but not spectacular and Alston is no impact at best. We don't have super talent. We have solid talent that with experience should be pretty good. But we're missing half the equation right now.

It's almost the end of the season and I don't see a lot of improvement. The 4 freshmen now have a year under their belts and the sophs have 2 years (and what does "playing here" have to do with it? Is basketball different at Texas or Tennessee? I hear Tennessee has a pretty good coach). Our top 7 or 8 against FSU's top 7 0r 8--we were on track to score 37 points in a 40 minute game--at home. 37 points! That was a week ago. A young Kentucky team got blown out by Duke first game of the season. Now UK is a top 5 team because they have improved. And before some extremist says we don't have top 5 talent, well of course--but we have better talent -and experience---than to score 30 points in 33 minutes at home against FSU last week or to score 23 in the first half yesterday against a Miami team that is not that good.

There seems to be no strategy on offense. The team is pretty well coached on defense, and maybe defense keeps them in games (sometimes), but a close loss is still a loss. You don't win basketball games without scoring. It ain't soccer.

 

[tsrich]

That could certainly be the case.

But, I know there are times when coaches want to make a point with players that are never publicized to even close supporters of the team. Also, match-ups matter a lot in basketball and coaches have plans for how they want to defend and attack differently from game to game. I think we are all disappointed in how the team plays at times, but I think the players, if not necessarily the team, have grown a lot this year.

I do not understand how Banks can be so inconsistent. That is troubling for next year when AD will be gone. As for Alston, since he returned, he has not been a factor in any game except the blowout loss to Clemson. Even AD's minutes are down significantly. So, except for Cole and Moore the minutes seem to be going to guys who will be here next season.

As I said earlier, the fact that Phillips and Ves are not playing at all tells me they may not be here next year.

I forgot about Philips. Based on his background I assumed he would be at least a decent sub. I don't understand

 

[alagold]

AS long as we are asking/searching--remember when we got all these "great" walk-ons 2 yrs ago and not only would we get super practices but maybe one would emerge to play. fudgettaboutit--hmmmm

 

[YlJacket]

Not that it matters much but here is what I would have done with minutes last game

Banks is a good defender but Miami had a plan for him that he didn't adjust to. They kept posting and banging him and didn't allow him to float the baseline. Either he was sick/hurt or that affected the rest of his game. He needed to sit some. I would not have put AD at the 5 but would admit I have come around to Ivy's view and would have put Moses at the 5 for 10 min or so to let Banks sit and think about things. More to the point I want to know if Moses can be a back up 5. The way he was playing yesterday, no better time to find out - he was on a roll.

Alston would have gotten the 2 or 3 minutes Cole got. In addition, both Jose and Devoe started playing defense like they knew they were going to get 40 minutes. Their rotations were slow at times. They needed to sit some.

On the other side, I have no idea in hadies why Moore got 1 minute. I guess I can understand that Cole had the flu and that limited his minutes but what he got was ridiculous - especially putting him in with 3 min to go and then taking him out a minute later. That sucked. You have a still potential asset in Philips that didn't see the floor. Play em.

Net net, hard as it is, that game wasn't about winning (we are long past that) - it was about playing the young uns that will be back next year and hopefully putting them in position to have small successes that can be built on. You want to start Sjolund and Moses - go for it. But Haywood, Moore and Cole should be getting major burn. 10 - 15 plus minutes each. And unless we have no plans to ever sit Devoe or Jose, we need to know if Haywood or Moore can play the 2 for a while. We need to let Philips at least try to play his way out of his funk.

We don't need to be playing Banks, AD and Moses at the same time. I don't care what any reason for it is. We don't need to bury Moore, I don't care what the reason is short of him telling CJP his mother has a bad heritage. Same with Haywood, Cole and even Philips. I am OK getting torched by 15 while the young uns play. Not so much the way we did it.

 

[lv20gt]

I don't believe you will find a lot of good teams starting a guy who plays 30 minutes and takes one shot and scores no points--just because of his defense.

We going to pretend that Banks is no threat to score ever now? Pretty much every player on our team has had games where the put up a goose egg in significant minutes including AD. Regardless it wasn't Banks taking AD's minutes. It was Moses.

If Banks is getting more time than AD because "we're playing with an eye for the future," wouldn't you get him the ball and have him work on his post moves/offensive game?

No, because he isn't the only guy needing work that we have. Almost everyone we have does.

If "we're playing with an eye for the future," wouldn't Moore have gotten more than 1 minute of playing time against Miami, while Alston got 11 minutes?

And he should have. Alston shouldn't ever be on the court.

and what does "playing here" have to do with it? Is basketball different at Texas or Tennessee? I hear Tennessee has a pretty good coach

Because experience alone isn't everything. Experience playing together is every bit as important.

 

[Bogey]

You just can’t fire a guy after 32 months when your program looked the way it did when he took it over.

That tells other coaches that you need to come in to Georgia Tech land recruits now and win now and if you don’t we will run you off. Not very appealing. Not to mention the job wasn’t very appealing 32 months ago when we went with our...5th? 6th option?

The man wanted to be here when no one else did. The man believed in this program when no one else did. He has a group that should be a bubble team next year. If they aren’t, I’m fully on board with moving on. When we hired him he said it was a 5 year rebuild. I’ll give him 4.

The other thing that annoys me is that some of y’all wanna do it clean. Let me be clear, I’d hire Rick Pitino tomorrow if he wanted to come here. No question, cmon over. I don’t give a damn about dirt, all in the game. No one does it clean. Recruiting is dirty. You wanna pay 1.9 MM for Mr Clean, to quote a member on this board I had a conversation with a week ago, you get what you pay for.

At least he’s better than BG

I agree with everything you said but I am OK with giving him 5. With our supposed recruiting problems, and because CPJ really wants to be here and working hard to make it happen. I think he deserves all 5 years unless we go backwards instead of forward next year.

Sent from my ASUS_Z01RD using Tapatalk

 

[gt02]

Here is what I am done with: abandoning any hope at an offensive rebound so we can set up our defense. Our offense is pitiful enough - we gotta use our length to try to get second chances.

 

[YlJacket]

Not that it matters much but here is what I would have done with minutes last game

Banks is a good defender but Miami had a plan for him that he didn't adjust to. They kept posting and banging him and didn't allow him to float the baseline. Either he was sick/hurt or that affected the rest of his game. He needed to sit some. I would not have put AD at the 5 but would admit I have come around to Ivy's view and would have put Moses at the 5 for 10 min or so to let Banks sit and think about things. More to the point I want to know if Moses can be a back up 5. The way he was playing yesterday, no better time to find out - he was on a roll.

Alston would have gotten the 2 or 3 minutes Cole got. In addition, both Jose and Devoe started playing defense like they knew they were going to get 40 minutes. Their rotations were slow at times. They needed to sit some.

On the other side, I have no idea in hadies why Moore got 1 minute. I guess I can understand that Cole had the flu and that limited his minutes but what he got was ridiculous - especially putting him in with 3 min to go and then taking him out a minute later. That sucked. You have a still potential asset in Philips that didn't see the floor. Play em.

Net net, hard as it is, that game wasn't about winning (we are long past that) - it was about playing the young uns that will be back next year and hopefully putting them in position to have small successes that can be built on. You want to start Sjolund and Moses - go for it. But Haywood, Moore and Cole should be getting major burn. 10 - 15 plus minutes each. And unless we have no plans to ever sit Devoe or Jose, we need to know if Haywood or Moore can play the 2 for a while. We need to let Philips at least try to play his way out of his funk.

We don't need to be playing Banks, AD and Moses at the same time. I don't care what any reason for it is. We don't need to bury Moore, I don't care what the reason is short of him telling CJP his mother has a bad heritage. Same with Haywood, Cole and even Philips. I am OK getting torched by 15 while the young uns play. Not so much the way we did it.

I listened to CJP's press conference yesterday, and after listening to that I am even more confused about the substitution "patterns" for the Miami game. CJP flat out said we lost to Miami because Devoe and Banks didn't play well at all and we came out with no energy to start the game. Yet Devoe had 38 minutes and Banks 30 minutes in a game they played "really badly". And in a game with no energy, an energy guy like Moore gets 1 minute. I don't get it.

 

[senoiajacket]

I listened to CJP's press conference yesterday, and after listening to that I am even more confused about the substitution "patterns" for the Miami game. CJP flat out said we lost to Miami because Devoe and Banks didn't play well at all and we came out with no energy to start the game. Yet Devoe had 38 minutes and Banks 30 minutes in a game they played "really badly". And in a game with no energy, an energy guy like Moore gets 1 minute. I don't get it.

At first glance either (1) CJP believes a Banks & Devoe playing not very well > whoever we have to replace them or (2) whoever we had to replace them didn't fit the "scheme" of what we were trying to do offensively or defensively or (3) CJP's substitution scheme has no logic.

I didn't see much of the game .... last 10 minutes, where we played them pretty evenly, so I can't really comment. I do think that Banks should be a lot more consistent than he is.

 

[gte447f]

I listened to CJP's press conference yesterday, and after listening to that I am even more confused about the substitution "patterns" for the Miami game. CJP flat out said we lost to Miami because Devoe and Banks didn't play well at all and we came out with no energy to start the game. Yet Devoe had 38 minutes and Banks 30 minutes in a game they played "really badly". And in a game with no energy, an energy guy like Moore gets 1 minute. I don't get it.

I haven't listened to the press conference yet, but this sounds like just a case of a classic CJP response. He says this sort of thing all the time, "So-and-so didn't play well. So-in-so has to play better. If So-in-so doesn't play well, it's just hard. If So-in-so doesn't play well, we can't win." I started noticing this at the beginning of last season with Ben Lammers, and CJP kept it up pretty much all year. Since then, he changes the player whose poor play he is focused on, but it is a common refrain. It drives me nuts, because I keep waiting for him to give a real answer that has something to do with strategy, scheme or X's and O's, but he never does. He continuously focuses only on the players' level of play, or at least that is the only thing he comments about. I like CJP, but this is one tendency that drives me crazy.

 

[senoiajacket]

I haven't listened to the press conference yet, but this sounds like just a case of a classic CJP response. He says this sort of thing all the time, "So-and-so didn't play well. So-in-so has to play better. If So-in-so doesn't play well, it's just hard. If So-in-so doesn't play well, we can't win." I started noticing this at the beginning of last season with Ben Lammers, and CJP kept it up pretty much all year. Since then, he changes the player whose poor play he is focused on, but it is a common refrain. It drives me nuts, because I keep waiting for him to give a real answer that has something to do with strategy, scheme or X's and O's, but he never does. He continuously focuses only on the players' level of play, or at least that is the only thing he comments about. I like CJP, but this is one tendency that drives me crazy.

Players gotta play. If they don’t the best scheme in the world won’t help. I thought I heard somewhere (maybe read it in the ajc article on the game) that CJP acknowledge that Miami had a good scheme to get the ball to the corners to beat the zone, but maybe I just imagined it. Even if he didn’t say it, he recognized it by shifting to a man.

I guess he could be more generic and just say something like “we are struggling in this area” or “certain players are struggling”, but often there is no magic bullet if your team is getting outplayed. As an example KState vs Kansas last night.

I guess I can agree that at some point, saying it has diminishing returns ..... even if it is true.

 

[AE 87]

My completely uneducated response to the question of substitution habits:
1) We have a lot of guys who seem to me to be of comparable talent.
2) CJP has a preference for playing fewer, ~8, players
3) There doesn't seem, to my untrained eyes, to be much consistency in choosing which guys will play
4) CJP seems to rapidly pull guys out for boneheaded plays -- which would seem to make guys play tighter rather than looser