Transfers out

Jack

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
213
Maybe like Marvin Lewis? On the right team, he can be productive, he’s a great player.
MK has every reason to play his best and inspired ball this year.
He contributed to a lot of victories
for GT and even made a few last seconds game winners and stuck around for four years. I wish him high percentage shooting, low turnovers, and a starting role at Auburn and will tune in to their games to see him play.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,252
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Morrow's Ppg:
FR: 5.7ppg
So: 16ppg, 4.5rpg
Jr: 9.5ppg, 2.7rpg*
Sr: 14.3ppg, 4.8rpg

Kelly's Ppg:
FR: 5.2ppg, 1.4Rpg
So: 14.4Ppg, 3.4Rpg
Jr.: 13.9Ppg, 5.5Rpg

*This was the season Morrow got pushed off WF so Thad could play there.

Anthony played a similar role at GT as he did in the NBA, right? He was a good starting player but despite the nine year NBA career, he is not mentioned in the same breath as the GT greats. He was a very good role player but he was not a star player. I think he was a solid defensive player, better than Miles and Devoe.
In my opinion, he was not a role player at Tech. He was a starter and was given freedom to do what he did.
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
836
In my opinion, he was not a role player at Tech. He was a starter and was given freedom to do what he did.
You are right. But, role players can be starters. Johnny McNeil was a role player, Anthony McHenry was a role player, Q. Stephens was a role player, Anthony Morrow was a role player. They are important players on winning teams but just not players that can get their own shots, or win the large majority of their match-ups and make big plays at crunch time.

Miles Kelly was given the opportunity to be the main guy this last season. I think it was shown that he was not that kind of player. It is not a knock. A similar thing happened to Devoe in his Senior season. I think the Marvin Lewis comparison is better with Kelly. It is only my opinion, but I think Miles Kelly is best suited as a role player, still a starter but as a designated spot-up shooter in a lesser role than he was given last season. Maybe he makes a late college career jump in his game, but that is not my projection.
 
Last edited:

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,252
Location
North Shore, Chicago
You are right. But, role players can be starters. Johnny McNeil was a role player, Anthony McHenry was a role player, Q. Stephens was a role player, Anthony Morrow was a role player. They are important players on winning teams but just not players that can get their own shots, or win the large majority of their match-ups and make big plays at crunch time.

Miles Kelly was given the opportunity to be the main guy this last season. I think it was shown that he was not that kind of player. It is not a knock. A similar thing happened to Devoe in his Senior season. I think the Marvin Lewis comparison is better with Kelly. It is only my opinion, but I think Miles Kelly is best suited as a role player, still a starter but as a designated spot-up shooter in a lesser role than he was given last season. Maybe he makes a late college career jump in his game, but that is not my projection.
I understand what you're saying. I have no problem with us disagreeing here.

You can't equate Anthony Morrow to Johnny McNeil or Anthony McHenry. They were both very limited in what they did. Stephens and Morrow were among the best players on their respective teams and were looked to for leadership, which is not the traditional definition of a role player. They're all role players in they have their role on the team. Morrow was a leader and one of the top scorers. I don't agree with your assertion unless you say his role was to score and play great defense. Yes, he was a spot-up shooter, but that's not all he did. By your definition (as I read it), you're saying that if you're not the lead dog, the view's the same, therefore you're a role player. I guess Baye was a role player last year?

Kelly was the main go-to guy this past season. As he went, the team went. I think he would have been a much better leader in the locker room this year had he returned. I'll miss him on this team.
 

Richland County

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
96
I understand what you're saying. I have no problem with us disagreeing here.

You can't equate Anthony Morrow to Johnny McNeil or Anthony McHenry. They were both very limited in what they did. Stephens and Morrow were among the best players on their respective teams and were looked to for leadership, which is not the traditional definition of a role player. They're all role players in they have their role on the team. Morrow was a leader and one of the top scorers. I don't agree with your assertion unless you say his role was to score and play great defense. Yes, he was a spot-up shooter, but that's not all he did. By your definition (as I read it), you're saying that if you're not the lead dog, the view's the same, therefore you're a role player. I guess Baye was a role player last year?

Kelly was the main go-to guy this past season. As he went, the team went. I think he would have been a much better leader in the locker room this year had he returned. I'll miss him on this team.
You are highly overrating every player in your statement. None of the above players were the best on their respective teams. Anthony had much better pro career than college as far as impact goes. Stephens was a uga killer and that is all. Miles, when has he been the best player on any team at Tech? Leading scorer yes, but not the best player. Miles Kelly's out put will be easily replaced. Damon tends to use a short bench so I am trusting him to construct a roster he likes and thinks that can win.
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
836
G
I understand what you're saying. I have no problem with us disagreeing here.

You can't equate Anthony Morrow to Johnny McNeil or Anthony McHenry. They were both very limited in what they did. Stephens and Morrow were among the best players on their respective teams and were looked to for leadership, which is not the traditional definition of a role player. They're all role players in they have their role on the team. Morrow was a leader and one of the top scorers. I don't agree with your assertion unless you say his role was to score and play great defense. Yes, he was a spot-up shooter, but that's not all he did. By your definition (as I read it), you're saying that if you're not the lead dog, the view's the same, therefore you're a role player. I guess Baye was a role player last year?

Kelly was the main go-to guy this past season. As he went, the team went. I think he would have been a much better leader in the locker room this year had he returned. I'll miss him on this team.
Good! Let's get down to definitions for clarity.

I would differentiate role players from mainstay players by the following:

A mainstay player will be the focus of the opposition game planning, but the player produces numbers in the teeth of the opposition's efforts to contain that player. Mainstay players create opportunities for their team mates by virtue of being the focus of the opposition. Mainstay players make plays at key moments in games. Good teams and championship teams have mainstay players because mainstay players win match-ups more often than not. Mainstay players create match-up difficulties, command double teams and scramble the opposition with their talent.

By contrast, a role player is one who's production is largely dependent on playing with mainstay players. They can't win individual match-ups consistently and therefore, require mainstay players to move the defense or create defensive plays to get open or get in transition or get a rebound.

My use of the term "role player" seems to be carrying a lot of baggage so maybe a better term is "complimentary player."

We agree that Miles Kelly was given the opportunity to be the main go-to guy on last year's team. But being given that opportunity does not mean he was successful. As often as not, Miles Kelly was successfully defended by opposing ACC players and coaches. His best performances were clearly in games when he "allowed the game to come to him." He did not show the ability to produce when he was the focus of the opposition's defense. Miles Kelly could be neutralized by ACC players and coaches.

By contrast, the two Freshmen, Ndongo and George flashed the ability to make plays at key moments and while heavily defended. Ndongo did this with his physical skills and his moxie, while George did it with his court vision and his moxie. As Freshmen, they were not consistent, but to me they showed the promise of being mainstay players, players who could lead us to wins in the ACC where I think Miles Kelly did not show me that.

It's not a knock. Miles Kelly is a good high level college player and that probably puts him in the top 5% of players in the world. Put him on the court with some seasoned mainstay players and he could be a key guy on a good team like Johnny McNeil was and Anthony McHenry was.

And I listed McNeil and McHenry because they were starters on two of the most accomplished teams that GT ever put on the floor. They were not scorers but they were fine defenders, did a lot of the dirty work and facilitated for the mainstay guys. Miles Kelly is like that as an offensive weapon. He has great range that defenses must respect so he was able to stretch the floor and prevent defenses from sagging. This is valuable to teams at every level. And while Kelly has made strides on defense (especially the boards, where his production was quite good last season), his defense has progressed from being awful to just scratching adequate. If he can't make it to the NBA like Morrow did, it will be because of his shortcomings on defense (the same as Devoe and Moses Wright).

Anthony Morrow is an interesting case. Morrow's best year in terms of scoring was his Soph year where he put up 16ppg and 4.5 rebounds per game. He led the team in scoring but the team was 11-17 and 4-12 in conference. He was the main guy on a bad team. The next season his scoring dropped to 10ppg which was 4th on the team. But the team was 20-12 (8-8) and went dancing. He wasn't the main guy, he was a complimentary player on a winning team.

Then, as a Senior, he was back to being the leading scorer on a 15-17 (7-9) team. He was the main guy on losing teams and a complimentary guy on a winning team. I project the same kinda deal for Miles Kelly. His upside is to be a complimentary player on a good team or a mainstay guy on a bad one.

When Morrow made it to the NBA, there was collective surprise among Tech fans. The buzz when he made it was, "If he was so good all along, why didn't we get him more shots??" The answer is, because he was a complimentary player and not a mainstay player. He carried that role to the NBA.
 
Last edited:

yjfan

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
193
Morrow 1st nba game - he just bombed out and scored like 44,points which set a record for most points in a debut game for an undrafted player. That got him recognition
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,252
Location
North Shore, Chicago
You are highly overrating every player in your statement. None of the above players were the best on their respective teams. Anthony had much better pro career than college as far as impact goes. Stephens was a uga killer and that is all. Miles, when has he been the best player on any team at Tech? Leading scorer yes, but not the best player. Miles Kelly's out put will be easily replaced. Damon tends to use a short bench so I am trusting him to construct a roster he likes and thinks that can win.
We can disagree, but you're comments are off-base, because there was no overrating. Morrow was a key player and a leader on the teams he was part of. Stephens was an underperforming player who was never reached the expectation of his promise, but was still one of the top players on the teams he played on. Besides, who said Kelly was the best player on the team? Not me. I believe my comment was that he was the main go-to guy this past year. If you disagree with that, then there's no use discussing it further because he was.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,252
Location
North Shore, Chicago
G

Good! Let's get down to definitions for clarity.

I would differentiate role players from mainstay players by the following:

A mainstay player will be the focus of the opposition game planning, but the player produces numbers in the teeth of the opposition's efforts to contain that player. Mainstay players create opportunities for their team mates by virtue of being the focus of the opposition. Mainstay players make plays at key moments in games. Good teams and championship teams have mainstay players because mainstay players win match-ups more often than not. Mainstay players create match-up difficulties, command double teams and scramble the opposition with their talent.

By contrast, a role player is one who's production is largely dependent on playing with mainstay players. They can't win individual match-ups consistently and therefore, require mainstay players to move the defense or create defensive plays to get open or get in transition or get a rebound.

My use of the term "role player" seems to be carrying a lot of baggage so maybe a better term is "complimentary player."

We agree that Miles Kelly was given the opportunity to be the main go-to guy on last year's team. But being given that opportunity does not mean he was successful. As often as not, Miles Kelly was successfully defended by opposing ACC players and coaches. His best performances were clearly in games when he "allowed the game to come to him." He did not show the ability to produce when he was the focus of the opposition's defense. Miles Kelly could be neutralized by ACC players and coaches.

By contrast, the two Freshmen, Ndongo and George flashed the ability to make plays at key moments and while heavily defended. Ndongo did this with his physical skills and his moxie, while George did it with his court vision and his moxie. As Freshmen, they were not consistent, but to me they showed the promise of being mainstay players, players who could lead us to wins in the ACC where I think Miles Kelly did not show me that.

It's not a knock. Miles Kelly is a good high level college player and that probably puts him in the top 5% of players in the world. Put him on the court with some seasoned mainstay players and he could be a key guy on a good team like Johnny McNeil was and Anthony McHenry was.

And I listed McNeil and McHenry because they were starters on two of the most accomplished teams that GT ever put on the floor. They were not scorers but they were fine defenders, did a lot of the dirty work and facilitated for the mainstay guys. Miles Kelly is like that as an offensive weapon. He has great range that defenses must respect so he was able to stretch the floor and prevent defenses from sagging. This is valuable to teams at every level. And while Kelly has made strides on defense (especially the boards, where his production was quite good last season), his defense has progressed from being awful to just scratching adequate. If he can't make it to the NBA like Morrow did, it will be because of his shortcomings on defense (the same as Devoe and Moses Wright).

Anthony Morrow is an interesting case. Morrow's best year in terms of scoring was his Soph year where he put up 16ppg and 4.5 rebounds per game. He led the team in scoring but the team was 11-17 and 4-12 in conference. He was the main guy on a bad team. The next season his scoring dropped to 10ppg which was 4th on the team. But the team was 20-12 (8-8) and went dancing. He wasn't the main guy, he was a complimentary player on a winning team.

Then, as a Senior, he was back to being the leading scorer on a 15-17 (7-9) team. He was the main guy on losing teams and a complimentary guy on a winning team. I project the same kinda deal for Miles Kelly. His upside is to be a complimentary player on a good team or a mainstay guy on a bad one.

When Morrow made it to the NBA, there was collective surprise among Tech fans. The buzz when he made it was, "If he was so good all along, why didn't we get him more shots??" The answer is, because he was a complimentary player and not a mainstay player. He carried that role to the NBA.
I agree with everything you've said. I think Miles was trying to play a role he had never played before and was successful some of the time and not successful a lot of the time. I think he was trying to take what he got from his Draft evaluation and show improvement while running a new system with a new coach. It just didn't work too much of the time. I think he would have been better this year, but I agree with @Richland County that his production will probably not be missed (we will see).

This whole back-and-forth came up because I said that Morrow wasn't really a role-player at GT, and I think your comments point that out. He was a role player as a freshman and more of a "complementary" player with Javaris and Thaddeus. Although on bad teams, he was one of the leaders on the team in '06 and '08.

As for George and Baye, I think they both were also leaders on last year's team. This was unusual because outstanding freshmen are typically role players with flashes of brilliance.
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
836
Another question is how much of Miles Kelly's difficulties being a mainstay player last season had to do with Stoudamire's system? I wonder if Pearl will run a ton of double screens for Kelly and make more of an effort to get him open looks than we did?
 

Techwood Relict

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,135
G

Good! Let's get down to definitions for clarity.

I would differentiate role players from mainstay players by the following:

A mainstay player will be the focus of the opposition game planning, but the player produces numbers in the teeth of the opposition's efforts to contain that player. Mainstay players create opportunities for their team mates by virtue of being the focus of the opposition. Mainstay players make plays at key moments in games. Good teams and championship teams have mainstay players because mainstay players win match-ups more often than not. Mainstay players create match-up difficulties, command double teams and scramble the opposition with their talent.

By contrast, a role player is one who's production is largely dependent on playing with mainstay players. They can't win individual match-ups consistently and therefore, require mainstay players to move the defense or create defensive plays to get open or get in transition or get a rebound.

My use of the term "role player" seems to be carrying a lot of baggage so maybe a better term is "complimentary player."

We agree that Miles Kelly was given the opportunity to be the main go-to guy on last year's team. But being given that opportunity does not mean he was successful. As often as not, Miles Kelly was successfully defended by opposing ACC players and coaches. His best performances were clearly in games when he "allowed the game to come to him." He did not show the ability to produce when he was the focus of the opposition's defense. Miles Kelly could be neutralized by ACC players and coaches.

By contrast, the two Freshmen, Ndongo and George flashed the ability to make plays at key moments and while heavily defended. Ndongo did this with his physical skills and his moxie, while George did it with his court vision and his moxie. As Freshmen, they were not consistent, but to me they showed the promise of being mainstay players, players who could lead us to wins in the ACC where I think Miles Kelly did not show me that.

It's not a knock. Miles Kelly is a good high level college player and that probably puts him in the top 5% of players in the world. Put him on the court with some seasoned mainstay players and he could be a key guy on a good team like Johnny McNeil was and Anthony McHenry was.

And I listed McNeil and McHenry because they were starters on two of the most accomplished teams that GT ever put on the floor. They were not scorers but they were fine defenders, did a lot of the dirty work and facilitated for the mainstay guys. Miles Kelly is like that as an offensive weapon. He has great range that defenses must respect so he was able to stretch the floor and prevent defenses from sagging. This is valuable to teams at every level. And while Kelly has made strides on defense (especially the boards, where his production was quite good last season), his defense has progressed from being awful to just scratching adequate. If he can't make it to the NBA like Morrow did, it will be because of his shortcomings on defense (the same as Devoe and Moses Wright).

Anthony Morrow is an interesting case. Morrow's best year in terms of scoring was his Soph year where he put up 16ppg and 4.5 rebounds per game. He led the team in scoring but the team was 11-17 and 4-12 in conference. He was the main guy on a bad team. The next season his scoring dropped to 10ppg which was 4th on the team. But the team was 20-12 (8-8) and went dancing. He wasn't the main guy, he was a complimentary player on a winning team.

Then, as a Senior, he was back to being the leading scorer on a 15-17 (7-9) team. He was the main guy on losing teams and a complimentary guy on a winning team. I project the same kinda deal for Miles Kelly. His upside is to be a complimentary player on a good team or a mainstay guy on a bad one.

When Morrow made it to the NBA, there was collective surprise among Tech fans. The buzz when he made it was, "If he was so good all along, why didn't we get him more shots??" The answer is, because he was a complimentary player and not a mainstay player. He carried that role to the NBA.
Dragons Den Stop GIF by CBC
 

Richland County

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
96
We can disagree, but you're comments are off-base, because there was no overrating. Morrow was a key player and a leader on the teams he was part of. Stephens was an underperforming player who was never reached the expectation of his promise, but was still one of the top players on the teams he played on. Besides, who said Kelly was the best player on the team? Not me. I believe my comment was that he was the main go-to guy this past year. If you disagree with that, then there's no use discussing it further because he was.
Is it so just because you say so? I believe Baye was the main go to guy. At the end Baye and George were sharing those duties. Miles tends to go MIA to often.
 

tbglover

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
729
Is it so just because you say so? I believe Baye was the main go to guy. At the end Baye and George were sharing those duties. Miles tends to go MIA to often.
Kelly played the most minutes, averaged the most minutes per game, took about 140 more shots than the next closest player, took 30 more free throws and 80 more 3's than the next closest player while also leading the team in steals, finishing 2nd in rebounds and 3rd in assists. He was the go to guy who the team seemingly tried to get touches to the most
 

Richland County

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
96
Kelly played the most minutes, averaged the most minutes per game, took about 140 more shots than the next closest player, took 30 more free throws and 80 more 3's than the next closest player while also leading the team in steals, finishing 2nd in rebounds and 3rd in assists. He was the go to guy who the team seemingly tried to get touches to the most
All of that is well and good, but it doesn’t change the narrative. His fg % this year was his worst at Tech. His 2pt shooting % this year was his worst at tech. Just because heot more than anyone means what exactly? Seems simple we differ on the ability and that is fine. I expect 4* talent to be more polished by year 3 in his or her college career.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,252
Location
North Shore, Chicago
All of that is well and good, but it doesn’t change the narrative. His fg % this year was his worst at Tech. His 2pt shooting % this year was his worst at tech. Just because heot more than anyone means what exactly? Seems simple we differ on the ability and that is fine. I expect 4* talent to be more polished by year 3 in his or her college career.
This wasn't the point made. The point was he was designated as the go-to guy last year. That shouldn't be a discussion at pointed out by @tbglover. I never said he was the most talented or most polished or even should have been the go-to guy. I'm not sure we're having the same conversation, and I don't know how we got here.
 

dtm1997

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
15,642
Ha, this is how I feel about this whole conversation/argument. I felt like jumping in but .. eh, I just felt like sittin down instead.

I'll leave it to the pros like @dtm1997 and @Techster to break it up. Those guys are the bees knees and I'm sure they're so happy to be summoned here via the notification I just sent 'em.

:sneaky:
Imma take a pass. Not worth my time.
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
836
I was thinking Faulkner, not Steinbeck, but I see your point. I'm more Hemingway, myself.
Steinbeck is my favorite American author, but Faulkner's "As I Lay Dying" is da bomb. Hemingway ... meh.

My posts are not for everyone, not for those who have succumbed to paragraph-a-phobia. Feel free to skip, 'cause I ain't changing.
 
Top