crut
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,366
If Jordan Usher transfers, there is only room for 3 commits/transfers in 2020.
Perspective on Josh Pastner
- Thread starter crut
- Start date
YlJacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,199
Unless you are Duke or KY you very rarely get 4 true "playmakers" in one class. If Usher transfers he joins Jose's class IIRC. So we would have a bulge going through the classes and need next year's class to contribute but not carry things immediately but really be ready to step up when that bulge goes out the door. So I would want one high end post player who could come in and contribute now but be Bank's replacement plus a guard and wing who are legit players (not projects) who can contribute in earnest a year out.
- Messages
- 10,800
We also have Sjolund and other freshmen who haven’t emerged yet, and I think Usher is kind of a back fill for Alford. The small 2019 class is more of a negative bulge, unless we see a real contributor in the next signing period.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
crut
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,366
Added note looking at the schedule... I think we will be favored in maybe 1 of our next 12 games. Yikes @ACC schedule
1. vs. #10 VT
2. @ Syracuse
3. @ Clemson
4. vs. Louisville
5. vs. Notre Dame
6. @ #1 Duke
7. vs. #15 UNC
8. @ #9 FSU
9. vs. Clemson
10. @ Notre Dame
11. @ #10 VT
12. vs. #9 FSU
1. vs. #10 VT
2. @ Syracuse
3. @ Clemson
4. vs. Louisville
5. vs. Notre Dame
6. @ #1 Duke
7. vs. #15 UNC
8. @ #9 FSU
9. vs. Clemson
10. @ Notre Dame
11. @ #10 VT
12. vs. #9 FSU
- Messages
- 11,504
- Location
- Marietta, GA
Yikes!!
Gtech50
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 517
Anyone know if Pastner will look at upgrading any of his assistants after the season? Losing Labarrie and Hardy seems to have been one of the reasons we have struggled with recruiting this cycle. Would love to see a great recruiter come onto the staff especially one with roots in ATL.
- Messages
- 2,970
I’m curious, who would you advocate for him to replace and why?
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,016
Neckwear is irrelevant.
wreckrod
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 427
This is awful but I still chuckled
- Messages
- 5,736
Some thoughts.
The graphic was clearly cherry-picked, it shows some of the guys who started slow and rebuilt and eventually won. Obviously it doesn't show ones that started slow and never really won.
The biggest take away should be it is too early to tell whether Pastner will be successful here or not. Years 4 and 5 will show that one way or the other. FWIW, having looked at this before Yr 4 is usually a strong indicator. If a coach is going to succeed at an ACC school you usually see it by Year 4. The one exception is Hamilton who always seems to take 5-6 yrs but gets teams to a good play at that point.
I think the fanbase has a somewhat incorrect view of what Pastner was going to do here. Fans (including me) were thinking good recruiter, poor game coach based on his Memphis tenure.
But he did mention at his opening PC that he had made mistakes at Memphis and hoped to learn from them. One was recruiting based. Just signing highly ranked players isn't good enough. You have to find players that can play as a team and win.
He made it pretty clear what his plan was for GT and it was quite different from what he did at Memphis. He mentioned ND and UVA as the types of programs he wanted to emulate in terms of creating a good program with older players and consistent teams. That's not what he did at Memphis, partially because he followed Calipari and the fanbase there basically demanded the program be run the same way.
He has been basically the opposite of what he was at Memphis. Not a great recruiter, though some of that is because he isn't looking to sign alot of high 4 and 5 star guys like he was at Memphis, but a better player development coach and game coach.
With how young we are playing this year (currently 61% of min going to FR and SO - compare that to over 70% going to JR and SR his first year here) this year was almost destined to be a transition year without Okogie.
He may ultimately be the right coach here, or he may need to be replaced - but 2 1/2 yrs in it is simply too early to know for certain.
The poor recruiting class this past fall was very disappointing and puts a ton of pressure on 2020. If the staff swings and misses again next season then it will be obvious that he is likely not going to be the guy, but i'm not going to overly obsess about 1 class. I've seen one bad class followed up with a very strong class, so i'll wait for next fall to see what happens there.
It has stunk to be bad for basically a decade. I can take one more year but there needs to be a significant upswing next season (at least a solid NIT club if not a bubble NCAA team) or I will start to feel the book is starting to be written. Right now i'm not willing to assume how good the book is when we are only halfway into it.
The graphic was clearly cherry-picked, it shows some of the guys who started slow and rebuilt and eventually won. Obviously it doesn't show ones that started slow and never really won.
The biggest take away should be it is too early to tell whether Pastner will be successful here or not. Years 4 and 5 will show that one way or the other. FWIW, having looked at this before Yr 4 is usually a strong indicator. If a coach is going to succeed at an ACC school you usually see it by Year 4. The one exception is Hamilton who always seems to take 5-6 yrs but gets teams to a good play at that point.
I think the fanbase has a somewhat incorrect view of what Pastner was going to do here. Fans (including me) were thinking good recruiter, poor game coach based on his Memphis tenure.
But he did mention at his opening PC that he had made mistakes at Memphis and hoped to learn from them. One was recruiting based. Just signing highly ranked players isn't good enough. You have to find players that can play as a team and win.
He made it pretty clear what his plan was for GT and it was quite different from what he did at Memphis. He mentioned ND and UVA as the types of programs he wanted to emulate in terms of creating a good program with older players and consistent teams. That's not what he did at Memphis, partially because he followed Calipari and the fanbase there basically demanded the program be run the same way.
He has been basically the opposite of what he was at Memphis. Not a great recruiter, though some of that is because he isn't looking to sign alot of high 4 and 5 star guys like he was at Memphis, but a better player development coach and game coach.
With how young we are playing this year (currently 61% of min going to FR and SO - compare that to over 70% going to JR and SR his first year here) this year was almost destined to be a transition year without Okogie.
He may ultimately be the right coach here, or he may need to be replaced - but 2 1/2 yrs in it is simply too early to know for certain.
The poor recruiting class this past fall was very disappointing and puts a ton of pressure on 2020. If the staff swings and misses again next season then it will be obvious that he is likely not going to be the guy, but i'm not going to overly obsess about 1 class. I've seen one bad class followed up with a very strong class, so i'll wait for next fall to see what happens there.
It has stunk to be bad for basically a decade. I can take one more year but there needs to be a significant upswing next season (at least a solid NIT club if not a bubble NCAA team) or I will start to feel the book is starting to be written. Right now i'm not willing to assume how good the book is when we are only halfway into it.
Mojo71
Georgia Tech Fan
- Messages
- 87
Like I said before, men lie, women lie, but the numbers don't lie! The numbers say...
1. A bunch of L's (losses) and more to come.
2. With the exception of Alvarado, no ball-handlers/playmakers in the backcourt. Devoe is just ok.
3. You got to have "some" talent to win don't you? Tech is missing/needing a playmaker with "handles" at the 2 or 3 that can get their shot off.
4. 2020 is CJP last chance to dance. Got to have 2 playmakers at least!
5. YOU DO THE MATH!
1. A bunch of L's (losses) and more to come.
2. With the exception of Alvarado, no ball-handlers/playmakers in the backcourt. Devoe is just ok.
3. You got to have "some" talent to win don't you? Tech is missing/needing a playmaker with "handles" at the 2 or 3 that can get their shot off.
4. 2020 is CJP last chance to dance. Got to have 2 playmakers at least!
5. YOU DO THE MATH!
- Messages
- 15,541
Don't tell me what to do.
msargent1
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 465
- Location
- Dallas, Texas
lv20gt
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,564
He said do the math. No rational person would think he was talking to you.
- Messages
- 10,800
(From https://www.ted.com/topics/math, which I should plug since I used their image.)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Messages
- 15,541
1) Ok, sure. RamblinRed's math works out just as well as yours, so expecting more losses from a team with underclassmen playing 60% of the minutes is not a shock.
2) To make the claim that Devoe is just ok is preposterous. We have no idea what Michael Devoe is yet, but there's a higher probability than not it'll be way better than OK. You tout numbers, but then ignore the 6 weeks he was laid up with a toe injury, playing no ball, and delaying his development. It sucks we lost a single game and, unfortunately, we can point to his missed FTs as a contributing factor, but choose to have the foresight to see what he's going to develop in to. A damn good playmaker with handles & a ratchet from deep.
3) See #2. Jose is clearly a playmaker. I have full faith Devoe will be a playmaker. Banks is rapidly developing skills I wasn't expecting him to have. Usher & Moore have high potential on the wings. I think we've also got some nice role players in the fold. We need to continue to add talent, but this concept of lack of talent is horse****.
4) I'm over your repeated ultimatums about 2020 or he has to go. His contract is reality. You can choose to not accept it. Also, the staff is aggressively chasing the local 2020 & 2021 classes, full of playmakers, when we'll be restocking.
5) I stand by my original response regarding #5.