GT under Pastner vs GT under Gregory?

InsideLB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,784
When JP was hired Calipari said JP was a much better fit at Georgia Tech than Memphis. I assume Calipari meant JP is cerebral/values academics highly and would be great fit working with the kind of kid we get/and to be in GT's culture.

My understanding of Gregory was that he was a solid coach but had trouble recruiting the kind of talent GT needs to win in the ACC. This year we had some surprisingly good results. Lammers developed like crazy and Okogie was a revelation as a true freshman. Yet these are cats Gregory recruited.

How is GT as a team different under Pastner vs Gregory? Are the players playing with more toughness? More hustle? Are they being put in a better position to win due to schemes? What is different that you see under Pastner vs Gregory? Do you think Gregory would have done just as well this year?

I am not as much of a hoops fan as I am football, and know a lot less about the game (stopped playing as a HS sophmore). So I am really asking from a position of sincere ignorance (even more so than usual, ha ha). Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
 

InsideLB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,784
Whoa....just read the Indiana/Crean thread....I'm not looking for emotional rubbish here, rather actual basketball analysis of how the team plays differently. I didn't realize Gregory was such an emotionally charged subject. Please keep it analytical and classy if you respond!
 

Peacone36

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,938
Location
Maine
One thing that always stuck out to me with Gregory was his staff. His commitment to Chad Dollar was ridiculous. Chad was supposed to recruit GA and never really made it happen. I'm assuming Jax and JOk were his but a lot got away. BG did make a nice hire in Herrion but it was too late. I also understand that we didn't pay assistants under BG like we do now but hey.....whatever

I also never once saw BG promote the program the way JP has. I don't live in Atlanta so I can't be sure but JP seems to embrace social media a bit more.
 

InsideLB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,784
Excerpt from this article rings true with the promotion aspect.

Do you agree with the 'playing with more energy angle?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0150...tner-has-georgia-tech-surprisingly-good-start

"Heading into Wednesday's game at Clemson, Pastner has Georgia Tech playing with high energy. He's pleased that its defense has the best field-goal percentage in conference play, but it all gets back to effort.

"I'm hard on guys who don't have high motors and I'm not lowering my standard," he said. "They have to meet me. It's their responsibility."

Expectations were low when Pastner arrived from Memphis nine months ago because the Jackets haven't been to the NCAA tournament since 2010. Brian Gregory, Pastner's predecessor, finished 11th three times, ninth once and 13th another year in the ACC.

Even so, Pastner credits Gregory with holding the program's character to a high standard despite its struggles in the court.

"We had great kids, and that's a credit to coach Gregory," Pastner said. "He did a great job with the culture. The problem was the program needed a little shot or infusion of energy to the fan base and to give a little rah-rah here and there."
 

mstranahan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,543
I don't know the explanation (do the kids like CJP more? Were there locker room issues with all the mercenary senior transfers? Did CBG not know how to teach an offensive set? Etc) but my observations of the on court product :

1) under CJP we have an offense that relies on ball and player movement, with lots of screens and cuts. He moved Lammers to high post when it helped and kept him down low when we needed it. Under CBG our offense tended to devolve into lots of dribbling around the perimeter and one guy shooting under duress as the **** clock hit zero.

2). Players developed this year at a more obvious rate than under CBG. Lammers and Tadric in particular. Q also, though his development was less obvious. He became a good rebounder and average defender, both of which were not seen in years 1-3.

3). The team switched D frequently this year, masking our shortcomings and making the best use of the kids we had. Corey became an important part of the team due to his on ball D, rather than an end of the bench kid the last couple of years. In prior years, the staff had two basic sets: man and a 2-3 if we were in foul trouble.

Those are just three areas, but I think they're good examples of the on court differences between the last four years and this year
 

Peacone36

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,938
Location
Maine
JP praising BG is coach speak. He can't come in with a scorched earth policy. It's unbecoming.

DUI, Gun Charge involving a problem assistant he brought from Dayton. burned a year of eligibility on an injured head case of a player, ran him off, then ran his brother off. His best player transfers out of literally nowhere.

If we had been winning these stories would have rcvd more run.
 

glandon1960

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
171
CJP vs. Gregory ...

Recruiting - obvious weakness for CBG was his inability to close deal on high level high school talent. To CBG credit he did outstanding job recruiting the grad xfers - but that is how you fill holes and unfortunately was becoming his go to strategy. CBG did recruit high charater kids - but talent level was not high enough to be in upper half of ACC.
CJP - focus on high level high school kids - that can shoot (don't recruit them if they are not good shooters). Too early to pass judgement - but what we've seen so far are the right things (even if he can't close Walker/Tucker this year). CJP's team this year has overachieved (over achieving teams are more fun to watch than talented teams that don't or barely live up to expecations) - credit to him, staff, and most importanly the players for accepting their roles and playing hard.

Defensive scheme - Gregory focused on man defense, only used zone as last resort or if in foul trouble. Pregame strategy good, as he usually focused on taking one or two players away from the other team (make the rest beat you). Liked to play 2 'big's which helped rebounding, could be liability in extending pressure ... played passive D - make you take tough shot and get the rebound - did not extend or force many turnovers. Never had great on-ball defenders and dribble pentration hurt us. Teams adjusted to what we did and that contrinuted to second half come backs.
Pastner - changing defenses, but really most games just plays one (the match up or man 80 plus percent of the time ... depending on team). Covers up the weaker on-ball defenders with help. More speed on floor (than CBG teams), led to better close out on perimiter ... lack of size and less emphasis on rebounding meant we got killed on boards on occasion.

Offense - CJP's adopted a style that fits the players he has ... will be intersting to see how it evolves over time (i.e. will whomever follows Lammers be as good in the high post?) ... we know he is after shooters to open up the floor ... and believes in speed (vs size) and stretch 4 .. which works well in most games. We've seen more movement WITH PURPOSE from this team than we've seen in a long time. CBG was a classic pound it inside guy - own the boards (did good there) ... but really never recruited/had the outside shooters needed for that system to work well .... CBG made less adjustements (from my observation), not sure if he did not because he would not or more likely it was beacuse he did not have weapons to do things much differently.

Whether Mbob or CJP - whoever made the decision on the assistants deserves credit - this is a great staff - each has their roles and they are doing great job. Covers up CJP's supposed weaknesses (which is a key role for the staff - hire people that are good/great at what you are not ... and CJP gets credit for knowing his weaknesses (did he learn from Memphis? Hope so)?)
 

Jumpman

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
518
JP praising BG is coach speak. He can't come in with a scorched earth policy. It's unbecoming.

DUI, Gun Charge involving a problem assistant he brought from Dayton. burned a year of eligibility on an injured head case of a player, ran him off, then ran his brother off. His best player transfers out of literally nowhere.

If we had been winning these stories would have rcvd more run.

I fully agree with everything said in this post. BG had problems with his staff and his players. However, CJP wasn't going to come in and bash him. His staff has also done a great job with developing the players on the roster and designing offensive and defensive schemes that work. If Paul Hewitt had a clogged toilet offense, Gregory had the clogged toilet offense 2.
 

jeffgt14

We Suck
Messages
5,643
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
Could be the staff. Could be scheme. CJP can actually make players better. Outside of MGH his senior year (which shouldn't have taken that long for someone of his talent level), the best players on the court were always guys who transferred in and developed from other programs. The home grown player development was abysmal.
 

SteamWhistle

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,378
Location
Rome, GA
Gregory wasn't likeable, he didn't have fight. He wouldn't get up and slam the scorers table and yell at players or the refs. Gregory was like that one assistant coach every team has that will go up and comfort a player after the coach chews him out, just too soft in general. The best thing he ever did was bring in MGH and Lammers, It took him 4 years to realize MGH was a PG not a SF and he never played Lammers. Gregory just wasn't a good player coach he knew the game of Basketball but kids didn't want to play for him, CJP is the exact opposite.
 

tbglover

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
658
I agree with the sentiments regarding fire. Seeing Pastnee actually get on players and officials when it makes sense is refreshing. Today with the team up 15 and with a minute left in the game he's still exploding because of a missed assignment that led to a wide open 3.
The other thing is aggressiveness. With Gregory everything was repetitious from the PF always inbounding to the quick pass up the side of the floor and things were passive. Whenthey passed around the perimeter it led to nothing and now it's done to find a seam and create an opportunity. The man to man just sagged to prevent penetration but never to create a turnover or pressure the ball which the defense does now even in the zone.
And because of these things the team is creating open shots, easy buckets and positive shifts in momentum
 

ESPNjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,318
CBG was the ultimate play not to lose coach. The passive defense, the stand still offense, the entire approach.

CBG yelled at players a good bit. The problem was it was often for missing a good shot. That makes no sense and contributed to the fearful offensive approach. He should be at a small school.
 

Peacone36

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,938
Location
Maine
I almost forgot my favorite part.

When a player hits a couple jumpers in a row.

Josh leaves him in the game.

I know, unheard of. If BG was still here Jax never would have score over 15.

"Sit yo *** down! Don't know what your thinking shooting the ball like you own the damn world disrupting Josh and Josh playing pass back at the top the key like they're supposed to, you're out there SHOOTING AND MAKING ? wrecking my offense"
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,952
One thing to keep in mind is that the academic situation of the team when CBG started was abysmal. If I understand the APR rules correctly, GT would not have been eligible for the NCAA tournament in his first year even if they had qualified on the court. Looking at the history of the numbers, GT should not have been APR eligible for the tournament from 2009-2012. He had to clean up the team. In his first year, the APR increased from 935 to 972. It was well above the minimum standards his entire tenure. Just my impression, but is seems like often when a coach is brought in to clean up a situation, academic or discipline, he doesn't last long after the clean up. CBG, Charlie Strong, etc. I don't know if CBG could have succeeded at GT if he was brought in in more favorable conditions, but I think he did a good job getting the program from the dumpster it was in to a favorable situation for CJP to step into(from an APR and attitude situation).
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,406
CJP vs. Gregory ...

Recruiting - obvious weakness for CBG was his inability to close deal on high level high school talent. To CBG credit he did outstanding job recruiting the grad xfers - but that is how you fill holes and unfortunately was becoming his go to strategy. CBG did recruit high charater kids - but talent level was not high enough to be in upper half of ACC.
CJP - focus on high level high school kids - that can shoot (don't recruit them if they are not good shooters). Too early to pass judgement - but what we've seen so far are the right things (even if he can't close Walker/Tucker this year). CJP's team this year has overachieved (over achieving teams are more fun to watch than talented teams that don't or barely live up to expecations) - credit to him, staff, and most importanly the players for accepting their roles and playing hard.

Defensive scheme - Gregory focused on man defense, only used zone as last resort or if in foul trouble. Pregame strategy good, as he usually focused on taking one or two players away from the other team (make the rest beat you). Liked to play 2 'big's which helped rebounding, could be liability in extending pressure ... played passive D - make you take tough shot and get the rebound - did not extend or force many turnovers. Never had great on-ball defenders and dribble pentration hurt us. Teams adjusted to what we did and that contrinuted to second half come backs.
Pastner - changing defenses, but really most games just plays one (the match up or man 80 plus percent of the time ... depending on team). Covers up the weaker on-ball defenders with help. More speed on floor (than CBG teams), led to better close out on perimiter ... lack of size and less emphasis on rebounding meant we got killed on boards on occasion.

Offense - CJP's adopted a style that fits the players he has ... will be intersting to see how it evolves over time (i.e. will whomever follows Lammers be as good in the high post?) ... we know he is after shooters to open up the floor ... and believes in speed (vs size) and stretch 4 .. which works well in most games. We've seen more movement WITH PURPOSE from this team than we've seen in a long time. CBG was a classic pound it inside guy - own the boards (did good there) ... but really never recruited/had the outside shooters needed for that system to work well .... CBG made less adjustements (from my observation), not sure if he did not because he would not or more likely it was beacuse he did not have weapons to do things much differently.

Whether Mbob or CJP - whoever made the decision on the assistants deserves credit - this is a great staff - each has their roles and they are doing great job. Covers up CJP's supposed weaknesses (which is a key role for the staff - hire people that are good/great at what you are not ... and CJP gets credit for knowing his weaknesses (did he learn from Memphis? Hope so)?)

I just want to say this is a fantastic post and i think sums up well where the differences are.
 

JacketFromUGA

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,891
One thing to keep in mind is that the academic situation of the team when CBG started was abysmal. If I understand the APR rules correctly, GT would not have been eligible for the NCAA tournament in his first year even if they had qualified on the court. Looking at the history of the numbers, GT should not have been APR eligible for the tournament from 2009-2012. He had to clean up the team. In his first year, the APR increased from 935 to 972. It was well above the minimum standards his entire tenure. Just my impression, but is seems like often when a coach is brought in to clean up a situation, academic or discipline, he doesn't last long after the clean up. CBG, Charlie Strong, etc. I don't know if CBG could have succeeded at GT if he was brought in in more favorable conditions, but I think he did a good job getting the program from the dumpster it was in to a favorable situation for CJP to step into(from an APR and attitude situation).
That's what he was hired at USF to do too.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,367
One thing to keep in mind is that the academic situation of the team when CBG started was abysmal. If I understand the APR rules correctly, GT would not have been eligible for the NCAA tournament in his first year even if they had qualified on the court. Looking at the history of the numbers, GT should not have been APR eligible for the tournament from 2009-2012. He had to clean up the team. In his first year, the APR increased from 935 to 972. It was well above the minimum standards his entire tenure. Just my impression, but is seems like often when a coach is brought in to clean up a situation, academic or discipline, he doesn't last long after the clean up. CBG, Charlie Strong, etc. I don't know if CBG could have succeeded at GT if he was brought in in more favorable conditions, but I think he did a good job getting the program from the dumpster it was in to a favorable situation for CJP to step into(from an APR and attitude situation).

APR is a 4 year average and the fact it improved so much is because a bad year fell off, not because the new year was all that better than the previous one or two. The reality is that it was very likely to improve no matter who was the coach.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,952
The APR is not a four year average. They use the four year average to determine post season penalties. The APR is calculated EACH YEAR. The following is copied from the NCAA website explaining APR:

"The APR is calculated as follows:

  • Each student-athlete receiving athletically related financial aid earns one point for staying in school and one point for being academically eligible.
  • A team’s total points are divided by points possible and then multiplied by 1,000 to equal the team’s Academic Progress Rate.
  • In addition to a team’s current-year APR, its rolling four-year APR is also used to determine accountability."

During CBG's first year, the "current-year" APR increased dramatically from 935 to 972. The four year average could not have increased from 935 to 972. If the team made a 1000 the year before CBG to bring it up from 915 to 935, a 1000 in CBG's first year would have only been able to reach a maximum four year average of 968. It is mathematically impossible to make that four year average increase in one year.

However, I was wrong about the post-season penalties. A few years ago the post-season ban number was raised from 900 to 930. The teams were eligible the whole time, but had they continued at CPW's rate, they would not have been after the increase.
 
Top