This team will surprise some

[lv20gt]

Last year's team had 10x more talent though. Fully prepared for a single digit win season.

The talent discrepancy isn't as big as you make it imo.

In the post I'll take Lammers over either Jacobs and Mitchell and while raw talent might favor last years team, the issue is that last year there was far too much overlap between the 4 and 5 spots. It clogged the paint and limited everyone's effectiveness. Next year we should have a 4 spot that will be a bigger threat from 3 point range and the opening of the court should offset the slight dip in talent. We're not talking about replacing Lawal and Favors here.

Smith was good at one part of the game. Shooting. Otherwise he was a below average player and even on offense he wasn't an overly efficient scorer. I expect Jackson to be a better all around player next year, even if there is a dip in offensive production.

PG trades Jorgenson for Moore. Tie at worst. Probably upgrade.

The big loss in talent is at SF where we basically replace Hunt with a freshman Matthews. Losing his playmaking ability, all around contribution, and experience are huge. But if we could put him on next year's team I would see an NIT birth as being a very reasonable prediction. As it stands we are basically relying on both Moore and Matthews to preform at a level well higher than is reasonable to expect in order to replace what we lost in Hunt.

 

[CuseJacket]

The talent discrepancy isn't as big as you make it imo.

In the post I'll take Lammers over either Jacobs and Mitchell and while raw talent might favor last years team, the issue is that last year there was far too much overlap between the 4 and 5 spots. It clogged the paint and limited everyone's effectiveness. Next year we should have a 4 spot that will be a bigger threat from 3 point range and the opening of the court should offset the slight dip in talent. We're not talking about replacing Lawal and Favors here.

Smith was good at one part of the game. Shooting. Otherwise he was a below average player and even on offense he wasn't an overly efficient scorer. I expect Jackson to be a better all around player next year, even if there is a dip in offensive production.

PG trades Jorgenson for Moore. Tie at worst. Probably upgrade.

The big loss in talent is at SF where we basically replace Hunt with a freshman Matthews. Losing his playmaking ability, all around contribution, and experience are huge. But if we could put him on next year's team I would see an NIT birth as being a very reasonable prediction. As it stands we are basically relying on both Moore and Matthews to preform at a level well higher than is reasonable to expect in order to replace what we lost in Hunt.

What's your over/under win expectation?

 

[orientalnc]

I apologize in advance for this post. But,

In the post I'll take Lammers over either Jacobs and Mitchell

This is interesting, as both of them were a lot better all round players last year than Lammers. Not to say Lammers won't continue to improve, but this comparison is naive if based purely on demonstrated ability. Especially when the other player that will have to fill one pair of those shoes is not really a 4, unless it's a guy who has never played at this level.

Smith was good at one part of the game. Shooting. Otherwise he was a below average player and even on offense he wasn't an overly efficient scorer. I expect Jackson to be a better all around player next year, even if there is a dip in offensive production.

Smith did for the team exactly what was asked of him, shoot the three. Clearly his shooting kept us in games and won games we lost in previous years under CBG. Jackson may yet be a better player, but I have not yet seen it. Neither player was an asset on defense. And Jackson can't shoot at Smith's level.

PG trades Jorgenson for Moore. Tie at worst. Probably upgrade.

Since Jorgy was hardly playing in the last half the season last year, that loss is negligible. So it will be Heath and Moore taking the place of Heath/MGH. Granted, Marcus was not a PG, but he filled that role when the team was actually having success.

The big loss in talent is at SF where we basically replace Hunt with a freshman Matthews. Losing his play making ability, all around contribution, and experience are huge.

It is a stretch for me to see anyone coming close to filling the roles Marcus played last year. So, we will have a huge net loss at this position.

It seems to me that we will have diminished talent/experience at every position. We may be an overall better shooting team if everyone plays to their potential. But that is where it ends.

 

[CuseJacket]

The talent discrepancy isn't as big as you make it imo.

In the post I'll take Lammers over either Jacobs and Mitchell and while raw talent might favor last years team, the issue is that last year there was far too much overlap between the 4 and 5 spots. It clogged the paint and limited everyone's effectiveness. Next year we should have a 4 spot that will be a bigger threat from 3 point range and the opening of the court should offset the slight dip in talent. We're not talking about replacing Lawal and Favors here.

Smith was good at one part of the game. Shooting. Otherwise he was a below average player and even on offense he wasn't an overly efficient scorer. I expect Jackson to be a better all around player next year, even if there is a dip in offensive production.

PG trades Jorgenson for Moore. Tie at worst. Probably upgrade.

The big loss in talent is at SF where we basically replace Hunt with a freshman Matthews. Losing his playmaking ability, all around contribution, and experience are huge. But if we could put him on next year's team I would see an NIT birth as being a very reasonable prediction. As it stands we are basically relying on both Moore and Matthews to preform at a level well higher than is reasonable to expect in order to replace what we lost in Hunt.

The flip side of that...

There is 1 Lammers vs. 4 serviceable bigs. Lammers may average 3 blocks and 4 fouls a game. Ogbonda looks like an undersized PF, let alone C. Hope he added weight as I am skeptical about listed height.

I'm not convinced Moore > Jorgenson. Appears frail and marginally more athletic, but I've only seen a couple highlight films. So I'll base current opinion on his offer sheet and what I've seen... give me year 3/4 Jorg over year 1 Moore.

MGH and Smith were our only offense at times last year. They willed us through games. Tadric + Matthews are not replacing that production and if they do, it's hard to imagine it will be as efficient. Smith was 41% from the field and from 3, the latter good enough for 6th in the NCAA. I'm not sure how many college 2G are more efficient particularly when face-guarded often. Doubt Tadric earns that treatment.

 

[Peacone36]

Lammers over Mitchell or Jacobs.

Let's expand that a bit and ask Lammers and Sly/Q over Mitchell AND Jacobs.

That's a blasphemous statement.

 

[CuseJacket]

We will be reminded next year how important it is to have someone who can bail us out on offense.

 

[CuseJacket]

Up tempo + small ball + below average shooting =

 

[lv20gt]

What's your over/under win expectation?

3.5 in conference play. I haven't looked at our schedule recently but I could reasonably see anywhere from about 0-6 win in conferences depending on how it lays out and depending on the bounces.

This is interesting, as both of them were a lot better all round players last year than Lammers. Not to say Lammers won't continue to improve, but this comparison is naive if based purely on demonstrated ability. Especially when the other player that will have to fill one pair of those shoes is not really a 4, unless it's a guy who has never played at this level.

I disagree. IMO they were both significantly better players in certain areas, Jacobs in scoring ability and Mitchell in rebounding. However I thought Lammers was the more well rounded player, but lacking the one area that stood out. I thought he was a better defender, and certainly better rim protector. I also thought, although this isn't as certain, that he had a higher basketball IQ and made better decisions, especially in comparison to Mitchell. At the 4 both Mitchell and Jacobs were probably more talented than Q, but neither was a 3 point threat, and while 32% is not great, bringing that % to the 4 spot should open up the floor more for driving opportunities. The lack of any sort of 3 point threat from the 4 position clogged up things last year. So what might be lost in talent, and I don't think the drop off is drastic, should be compensated by the court spacing. Defensively we'll improve at the 5, and probably decline at the 4, but Stephens is probably better suited to guard the 4 than the 3 against most teams, unless they are running a true dual post scheme.

Smith did for the team exactly what was asked of him, shoot the three. Clearly his shooting kept us in games and won games we lost in previous years under CBG. Jackson may yet be a better player, but I have not yet seen it. Neither player was an asset on defense. And Jackson can't shoot at Smith's level.

Then he wasn't asked to do enough. A good team isn't composed of a bunch of players that just do one thing well. Smith's lack of real point guard skills, and sub-par defense hurt us last year. So yes while he was a good shooter, and had the potential to go off, his go off games didn't always translate to wins, and when he wasn't on he was borderline useless. And because of team composition, and no 3 point threat from the 4 spot, his ability to shoot 3s outweighed pretty much any other aspect of the game. With /McCormick at the 4, we can afford to drop a little shooting at the 2 spot for increased ball handling, defense, and penetration potential.

Since Jorgy was hardly playing in the last half the season last year, that loss is negligible. So it will be Heath and Moore taking the place of Heath/MGH. Granted, Marcus was not a PG, but he filled that role when the team was actually having success.

When Hunt was handling the ball I consider that to be us running a no PG line up. Easier analysis. If you want to consider him at the PG spot then fine, but when he was at PG he wasn't at SF, and I think it's likely that Matthews/Okogie can contribute at the 3 as much as our non Hunt SF's did last year. Considering Hunt as purely a SF, then with Heath returning we basically add Moore and whatever surprise he might bring. At worst he is not much of a factor which is no worse than what Jorgenson was last year.

It is a stretch for me to see anyone coming close to filling the roles Marcus played last year. So, we will have a huge net loss at this position.

I agree. Hunt did so much for us that it isn't reasonable to expect to replace him. For us to do so it wouldn't be one guy. It would be at a minimum two freshmen, Okogie/Matthews and Moore, playing at a level that isn't right to expect them to play at. But things do happen. Freshmen have come in and played at a level higher than expected. IIRC Hanlan was a 3* who burst out as a freshman. I'm not expecting it, but it does happen. In all I expect the loss of Hunt to hurt us a ton but I also expect it to be by far the biggest loss. Center should improve, PG has the potential to do so, and both SG and PF will be very different than last year. But different doesn't mean worse. Replacing a guy doesn't just mean looking what at one guy could do well and seeing how his replacement will do in that area. We are going to transition from a mostly 2 PF post play line ups to a true center + stretch 4 line up by the looks of it. It's going to look different and we're going to have different weaknesses, but if you punt Hunt on next year's team I think it would have a decent chance at making the NIT. With Hunt, I would argue next year has a better team composition. And his loss is why I'm seeing a drastic loss in the W column. If by some miracle though the freshmen do step up and replace what we lost with him more or less, then I do expect similar results. But that's too much to reasonable expect from them.

 

[orientalnc]

@lv20gt , I think we mostly agree, except for the language we use. There were times last year when Lammers played very well. But Mitchell and Jacobs both averaged above 10 ppg and Mitchell averaged almost 10 rpg. Lammers did not come close to either one in either stat. That said, I think Lammers' improvement has been remarkable and he will need to continue that if we have any hope of getting even a handful of ACC wins next year.

Smith did a lot more than hit treys, but that was his strength. I am trying to think of an area of basketball where Jackson was clearly the better player. Maybe he will show it this year. I think the absence of MGH will actually help him find his role.

Before the rule change that outlawed hand checks, Heath was a decent PG. But that change put a lot more scoring and penetrating pressure on the point. In order to compete we have to have a guy there who can score. That is why MGH was moved up top late last year and was maybe the smartest coaching change of CBG's tenure at Tech.

Assuming Lammers plays the 5, then Q and someone will share the 4 spot. Q pulled down less than four rpg last year and hit a total of 31 3s for the season. Less than one per game. Yes, he will be a bigger outside threat than Mitchell or Jacobs, but they had clear instructions to not take shots out there (an odd stat: Mitchell, Jacobs, Lammers, and White had a total of zero 3P attempts).

I hope your optimistic outlook is more accurate than mine. We shall see.

 

[ESPNjacket]

One thing is for sure. It won't take much to surprise me and I would really enjoy the surprise.

 

[lv20gt]

Going by averages for the bigs is misleading because averages take into account the entire year, and IMO it is clear that Lammers developed a good bit as the year went on. For instance, in the last 8 games against ACC opponents Mitchell played 23 mpg and went 6.875 ppg 7 rbg on 52% shooting with .125 blocks. Lammers, the last 8 games against ACC opponents played ~15.25 mpg, scored 3.375 ppg, pulled down 4 rpg, and shot over 72% from the field in addition to 1.625 blocks.. If you adjust for minutes played and extend the production out to 23 mpg, which yes I know isn't how statistics actually work but close enough, then Lammers has a 5.1 ppg, 6 rpg. The reality is that if he played more his ppg would probably increase by more at the expense of his shooting percentage because he'd be expected to contribute more offensively. I just don't see much in the way of drop off from Mitchell to Lammers, especially if we account for the likely improvement Lammers will make going forward. For Jacobs he averaged 9.25/6.125 in 24.375 mpg on 45% shooting with .125 blocks per game during that time frame. Again that comparison shows that Lammers holds his own rebounding against Jacobs, is better defensively, and a good bit behind offensively, but that question really boils down to how much efficiency will Lammers lose when asked to produce more. I just don't see the massive drop off from Jacobs/Mitchell to Lammers.

I don't see what Smith brought to the table outside of shooting though. And even then, his point per shot was only 1.18. That is actually below what our team averaged. Without his totals our team averaged 1.24 pps. Hunt was 1.53 pps and yet Smith took more shots in fewer minutes. Here's the pps of some guys in the ACC who shot around 400 shots and had a percentage comparable to Smith. Grayson Allen, 1.5, Ingram 1.28. Brogdon, 1.36. Gbinije 1.39. Barber 1.36. The simple truth is that he shot a ton of 3s, shot them at a 41.6% and still posted a 1.18 pps. That means outside of the three, he was not a good scorer. His defense was weak, and he wasn't a good ball-handler or distributor and IMO Jackson was better in those last year and should still improve some. And before anyone points it out yes Jackson was worse in that regard. I expect him to improve when he is allowed to get more in rhythm with consistent minutes, and there is the very real hope that some of the good looks he got last year will start to fall, and I'm not even talking about just jump shots. I also think the more spread out nature our offense looks to be taking on better suits Jackson than what we saw last year.

Q shot 97 3 pointers to Hunt's 117 despite Hunt playing over 440 more minutes than Q. Now set that in the framework as a PF instead of a SF and that is a pretty solid threat, assuming decent shooting. If Q plays mostly at the 4 it is fair to expect a significant impact to be made on the spacing and how teams have to defend us as opposed to last year. As far as clear instructions go, they didn't need to be told not to shoot 3s. It just isn't a part of their games. Jacobs attempted 1 three his entire college career. Mitchell none. Lammers none. White was 3-15 on his career. That's a total of 16 3 point shots over 14 combined seasons. As far as rebounding goes, yes, Q was not the best rebounder. He was also playing the 3 position. He got .4 more rebounds per game than Hunt despite playing 12.3 fewer mpg and nobody thought Hunt was a poor rebounding SF. He also averaged 4.25 rpg in ACC play and 5.5 pg when Hunt moved to more of a PG role. I would expect those numbers to climb if he moves to the 4. Now he's not going to be a rebounding machine, but do keep in mind that Mithell averaged 8.6 ppg against ACC teams in 23.85 mpg, and as above shows that number decreased as the year went along. I wouldn't expect Q to be at that level but if he plays the 4 I would expect Q to bring down 7 or so rebs per game in ACC play. A drop off sure, but I wouldn't call that horrible with how highly thought of Mitchell was as a rebounder.

And really my outlook isn't that optimistic. I'm expecting about 3 wins in ACC play. It's just I feel that most of the loss from last year is in the loss of Hunt and not really with the other losses. The optimism that stems from that is if one of our recruits significantly out plays expectations, then IMO we could be an NIT team. And it's not unheard of. Hanlan of BC was rookie of the year but was a 3* recruit. I don't expect it, but it does happen.

 

[orientalnc]

Wow. I thought we almost agreed, then you drove that seeming agreement into the ditch. Your original post said, "In the post I'll take Lammers over either Jacobs and Mitchell." Now you say, "I just don't see the massive drop off from Jacobs/Mitchell to Lammers." Then you say Q should average " 7 or so rebs per game in ACC play." If Q does that he will be one of the top rebounders in the ACC, as 7 rpg would have placed him 12th in the ACC last year.

Lammers is a very traditional Div I center. He's almost 7 feet tall and has no game away from the basket. He's a good shot blocker, but his lack of strength relative other ACC bigs creates problems rebounding in traffic or defending against those guys. Q will create some match-up problems for some opposing 4s, but the reverse will be true when he has to guard a guy who outweighs him by 30 pounds and has equal quickness. Sure, he shot 97 treys last year, but made only 32%. He hit more than two 3s in a game four times last year and failed to hit a single three eighteen times. I think it is interesting that you chose to focus on Mitchell's final eight games. In Qs final eight games he failed to score twice and got two points twice. He scored double digits once, in the blowout game in Columbia, SC. In those eight games he hit 5 3s in 27 attempts. And, he may be our worst defender now that Jorgy is gone.

 

[alagold]

Given the teams and talent in the ACC, I will be surprised if we win one game.Even to do that ,we would have to have Tadric or someone go off for 25 and/or a NEW guy steps up HUGELY. This is untalented team with little proven capability and a new system.--from shooting (esp 3s and FTs) to ball-handling/passing .Offense will be a great struggle. There may be some 40s games. (unless we go for the 77-108 type games)

 

[g0lftime]

It will be interesting to see who will play 4 position. Q has the height but not the body to rebound with a lot of the bigs. If he plays 4 then he better start putting it on the floor and penetrate or we will not be able to rebound well. Not sure he is strong enough to be effective at 4 on defense. I think he is better at 3 position based on his past performances. Would still want him to put it on the floor to open up his shot rather than spotting up all the time. That should give him a better shot at pro ball as well. The starting lineup will be interesting and what the coaches have asked the players to work on in the off season. Definitely will have a lot of role changes this season. I think Pastner likes up tempo style of play but he may have to slow it down to keep games closer since we are so outnumbered this year. That puts a lot of emphasis on the PG to control the game and not sure that is a strength of this group.

 

[gtbync]

By the comments of some on this post, it's like you don't think a player can change and will stay the same throughout his career. lv20gt is looking at the positives also. The seniors was asked to do more because, I assume because of experience so of course Q and TJ was going to take the back seat to them. Looking at a article where Heyward was shooting over 63 percent from the field, what did CBG see not to play him more. <just an example>. A coach can make or break a player. This year we will see a whole different team

 

[calvin forever]

Adam Smith was first in conference in 3-point makes and second in percentage...he was beyond "good at one skill." He was damn near elite at one skill.

 

[lv20gt]

Wow. I thought we almost agreed, then you drove that seeming agreement into the ditch. Your original post said, "In the post I'll take Lammers over either Jacobs and Mitchell." Now you say, "I just don't see the massive drop off from Jacobs/Mitchell to Lammers." Then you say Q should average " 7 or so rebs per game in ACC play." If Q does that he will be one of the top rebounders in the ACC, as 7 rpg would have placed him 12th in the ACC last year.

I'm not sure your point on my comments about Lammers in relation to Mitchell/Jacobs. I'll take Lammers over Jacobs or Mitchell because he is more of a true center and I think he has better basketball IQ and decision making, I also don't see the massive drop off from Jacobs/Mitchell to Lammers statistically late in last season. Lammers rebounded at a similar rate, and he scored less but on higher percentage, and it's fair to assume that if he played starter minutes he would shoot more, thus scoring more points but hurting his percentage. You said he didn't come close to either one in stats. My argument was that late in ACC play he wasn't the far off in stats when adjustments are made for minutes played and using a little logic to adjust the stats for if he became a starter looked more to score than he was last year.

As far as Q goes, he averaged 5.5 rpg in 10 games against ACC teams from the SF position once Hunt effectively became a PG. This was with usually playing with two post players and in an effective big line up with Hunt instead of a point guard meaning that he got those number in a lot of lineups that were probably rebound heavy. It really shouldn't be that controversial to think that number will go up if he's the starting PF. Also, I wouldn't call twelfth in a conference a top rebounder.

Lammers is a very traditional Div I center. He's almost 7 feet tall and has no game away from the basket. He's a good shot blocker, but his lack of strength relative other ACC bigs creates problems rebounding in traffic or defending against those guys. Q will create some match-up problems for some opposing 4s, but the reverse will be true when he has to guard a guy who outweighs him by 30 pounds and has equal quickness. Sure, he shot 97 treys last year, but made only 32%. He hit more than two 3s in a game four times last year and failed to hit a single three eighteen times. I think it is interesting that you chose to focus on Mitchell's final eight games. In Qs final eight games he failed to score twice and got two points twice. He scored double digits once, in the blowout game in Columbia, SC. In those eight games he hit 5 3s in 27 attempts. And, he may be our worst defender now that Jorgy is gone.

Lammers has as much away from the basket game as Mitchell did, and Jacobs wasn't that much better. Also you claim he will have problems rebounding or defending but come on. Towards the end of ACC play he was rebounding at a rate that was competitive with Jacobs and Mitchell, and people thought Mitchell was an amazing rebounder. Considering that Lammers will have had a summer and fall to add on weight that worry isn't warranted. As far as defense he was our best defensive big last year as he was. Sure, he'll probably struggle some against the elite level guys. So what? So to did Jacobs and Mitchell and elite level guys are elite level for a reason. Not every team is going to have them.

Q will struggle defensively. It's a trade off, better offensive spacing for worse defense, although it's not like either Mitchel or Jacobs were great in that area anyways. And in any case he couldn't defend at the SF position either so even the defensive loss at the 4 is potential offset to some degree by him not defending the 3 position. And yes, he is not a great 3 point shooter. Which is why he shouldn't have been playing the 3 spot. But a PF who can shoot 32% is much more valuable than a SF that can shoot 32%. With the loss of Smith Q's 3 point attempts will probably go up and if he can maintain the 32%, or hopefully improve it some, at the PF spot, that will do wonders to spread out the offense and open the lane. As far as last 8 games, which was of ACC play by the, I wasn't focusing on Mitchell's final 8 games. I was focusing on Lammers in order to compare the post play of Lammers lat in the year in order to account for the improvement that he made. During that time period he averaged 5.25 rebs per game from the 3 and .75 blocks per game. Anyways, Q is better suited to defend the 4 than the 3 anyways, because he was to slow to defend the majority of the SFs in the league, and while the more post oriented PFs will take advantage of his lack of bulk, the best match up for him is guarding guys similar to him, the stretch 4s. His length will probably also lead to more blocks, and in conjunction with the increase defense by having Lammers play moreprobably means there won't be much of a drop off defensively in the interior except against teams that really run two post line ups.

Adam Smith was first in conference in 3-point makes and second in percentage...he was beyond "good at one skill." He was damn near elite at one skill.

Where are you getting he was second in percentage? . Here is the ACC official stats Smith was 6th overall and 8th in conference in 3 point%.

 

[Peacone36]

This discussion has gotten ridiculous.

 

[AE 87]

This discussion has gotten ridiculous.

LOL.

 

[YlJacket]

Comes back to - if things really break well then maybe we can be almost as good as we were last year. Best case.

I've always said Q should play 4. He has demonstrated he can't guard a 3. Unless one of the redshirt kids has improved exponentially I think he will.
Lammers is and will be a good traditional defensive oriented center. Should be stronger to rebound a bit better, passes well but unless he improves temendously he is not going to take up Mitchell's scoring.
Smith is not getting his due for last year. Often he was our offense. Better than MGH at getting his own shot off. And he did space the floor to give the bigs some space to work. Tadrick won't space the floor like him and neither will Q - even at the 4.

We potentially could be a good D team next year. Tadrick is better than Smith and I have some decent hope for Q guarding the 4 spot with some help. I don't see how we score consistently and especially against good D teams.