Article UVA Game

  • Highlight

Georgia Tech vs Virginia

Abdoulaye Gueye’s improvement is a big reason for Georgia Tech’s 3-1 ACC start (photo credit to USA Today

Thursday night at McCamish Pavilion, the Virginia Cavaliers, the #2 team in the country, come to town…of course, ice and snow permitting. Virginia is 16-1 on the season and 5-0 in ACC play. They currently sit atop the ACC standings but might be moving back after a battle with the #3 team in the ACC, the Duk…..Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets.

Leading the Cavaliers is Seth MacFarlane’s long-lost brother, Tony Bennett. The two-time National Coach of the Year and in his 9th season at Virginia, Coach Bennett is the other half of Coach Pastner’s get old, stay old motto with Notre Dame’s Mike Brey. Tony Bennett is known for his grind it out defense and working the clock for a good shot on offense. While this type of game plan does not attract the 1 and done guys, UVA has been able to land those four-star players that are super talented but need 3-4 years of development to go pro or be a really solid college basketball player. So far this year, it is no different. The Cavaliers are still playing rock solid defense, but they added something that was missing in the past…offensive weapons, and even scarier…from multiple different players.

To start it off, I will begin with probably the most notable player on the UVA roster. Even though he has let down thousands of people on Twitter by shaving off his man bun, the 6’2” sophomore #5, Kyle Guy is still a fan favorite. Guy is averaging 15.5 points per game and is shooting 44% from behind the arc. If you need a reference, think of Fletcher Magee from Wofford. He can flat out shoot the ball, plain and simple. Now that you have wiped off your sweat following Magee flashbacks, we can continue breaking down Kyle Guy. He has added a nice pump fake and pull up if you close out too strongly on three-point attempts, along with a nice floater if he gets closer to the rim. Defensively, he has been improving and is now constantly sliding his feet, moving over to take a charge and getting those slap down steals that lead to fast breaks. Due to his size, it will be interesting to see if Tech tries to get Tadric on the block against Guy. Especially with a good defender in Devon Hall focusing on Okogie.

Speaking of Hall, #0, he is one of the biggest pieces for Virginia as a 6’5” redshirt senior. The lefty is averaging 12.5 points per game and is shooting 47% from three. He usually plays the 3 in the lineup and can do a little bit of everything for UVA. Hall has nice court vision, hits open shots, and plays tough defense all game, as you will see is a trend for all these Virginia players. Not much more to say. Hall will play hard and get the job done. Every. Single. Night.

Here comes the “Human Highlight” #21, Domin….Isaiah Wilkins. The 6’7” senior out of Greater Atlanta Christian Academy, previously known as “oh hey, that’s Dominique’s kid” during the first two and half years of his career at UVA, is now a vastly improved, above average ACC player. He has always had the athleticism and energy, but has finally put it all together. If you don’t believe me just look at college hoops and one of GTSwarm’s posters favorite’s, Jon Rothstein’s twitter. Book it. It seems like every game he tweets “Isaiah Wilkins, ultimate glue guy” and that is what he is. His defense is spectacular and at the moment, I say he wins ACC Defensive Player of the Year. Now that he has added an offensive game, he is a serious threat and someone that needs to be held in check.

The other guard for UVA is the 6’5” sophomore out of New York #11, Ty Jerome. Even though he was rated a 4-star by most of the services, I believe he is severely underrated. As you might be shocked, he is sound player that does a lot of things right (they have those at UVA?). He can shoot it, play defense as he loves to get the poke from behind steals, and works the ball around to the open teammate. It seems like he is always the one to make the extra pass to Guy in the corner for the three and assist. Despite not wearing any accessories or having the “off the bus factor”, Ty Jerome is a baller.

The big man for Tony Bennett is #33, Jack Salt. Not only does his name sound like some fake name celebrities use when booking a reservation, but the 6’10” redshirt junior out of New Zealand has a lot of skill. He feeds off of drop-off passes in the paint for the two-handed jam and hits the backside offensive glass for easy put backs. He has a huge frame much like Purdue’s Isaac Haas and is a force down low. You are not going to move him out of the way, and if he boxes you out like he typically does, you might as well start running back on defense. Though, an area where Salt struggles is with fouling. He tends to hack and reach when he does not need to. If Lammers or AD are at the line a lot tonight, Tech should be in an advantageous position.

The wild card for Virginia is the redshirt freshman out of Philly #12, De’Andre Hunter. The 6’7” wing who was upset that he had to redshirt last year, has come out with a mission in his first campaign. If you could go to a factory and design a body type for a wing, Hunter would be the model to use. With the help of his athleticism, he has brought some needed change of pace and high-flying action to Charlottesville to go along with the great defense and ball movement already established.

The two other players that typically round out the UVA rotation are 6’1” grad transfer from Rutgers #23, Nigel Johnson, along with 6’9” redshirt sophomore #25, Mamadi Diakite. Out of the two Johnson is the shooter and Diakite is the slasher. Diakite’s jump shot is still a work in progress, but his vertical needs no work. Like Hunter, he comes off the bench with energy and tries to get some fast break dunks to extend the lead while the starters get a little rest. When Johnson comes in, he is in there to keep the offense moving, make the smart upperclassmen choices with the ball, and hit the open shot when available.

Prediction: Georgia Tech will have a lot on their plate, but offensively it is setting up for Tadric Jackson to break out. He is due, and I have a “Boston College from last year” feeling about this game. If he can slash and get into the lane, or on the block/high post against Guy, I like Tech’s chances. Georgia Tech will also need Alston and Alvarado to hit open threes on the wing when we swing it, along with Haywood when he is in there. I will be surprised if Okogie has a big game, but if he does, I will feel confident in a W. With all this considered, I still can’t bring myself to picking them…them as in Virginia. Tech by 6. *cue Pastner pumping up the crowd as he walks into the tunnel after the game*

 
Last edited:

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
Agreed that AD’s switch has helped us tremendously. That is my point though. Partner will take educated risks during the season but to play extra guys just cuz won’t get it done.

It isn't just cause though. The reason is to give us more actual depth for later in the year, and next year. People seem confused thinking the sole responsibility for a coach is to win the next game. It isn't. It's to do what's best for the program. And sometimes that means sacrificing short term loss for long term gain. It's also not calling for either Wright or Cole to take minutes away from Ben or Gueye. It's calling for them to come in when one of those have to sit instead of the stupid small ball we've tried to do throughout the year. Us winning isn't contingent on Alston wondering aimlessly on the perimeter those 10 minutes when Gueye needs to sit.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,850
Not sure why playing small ball is 'stupid'.

In order to get time in games you have to earn that opportunity in practice. We know (because Pastner mentioned it) that Moses and Evan have been held out of playing in at least 2 games recently due to not playing at the effort level he wants in practice.

When they earn time based on how they are playing in practice then i suspect you might see them get some time in games. Right now its clear the staff believes it has 7 guys it is comfortable playing in games.
 

Connell62

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,079
Not sure why playing small ball is 'stupid'.

In order to get time in games you have to earn that opportunity in practice. We know (because Pastner mentioned it) that Moses and Evan have been held out of playing in at least 2 games recently due to not playing at the effort level he wants in practice.

When they earn time based on how they are playing in practice then i suspect you might see them get some time in games. Right now its clear the staff believes it has 7 guys it is comfortable playing in games.

Not stupid at all, it puts our best players on the floor. Playing time is earned, not given..

Yes, a coaches job is to build the program, but let's be real, they gotta win ball games first, or they will not be around to see said players get old/develop.

I'm all for playing small, especially if we can get Curt going again. A line-up of Jose, Tad, Curt, Josh, and Ben maybe our best offensive line-up.
 

wreckrod

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
429
Not sure why playing small ball is 'stupid'.

In order to get time in games you have to earn that opportunity in practice. We know (because Pastner mentioned it) that Moses and Evan have been held out of playing in at least 2 games recently due to not playing at the effort level he wants in practice.

When they earn time based on how they are playing in practice then i suspect you might see them get some time in games. Right now its clear the staff believes it has 7 guys it is comfortable playing in games.

Totally agree on the playing time.

For the small ball - I dont have the numbers to back this up, so I could be wrong, but man it sure seems like every time we go small it triggers a run by the other team and we go on a scoring drought. Which either ruins the lead we had built up or lets the other team get ahead.

Usually we play ok defense, but we give up a ton of offensive rebounds and ultimately second chance points. And then we turn around and struggle on the other end. There may be ways to be successful playing small ball but we sure look like we are playing left handed when we go that route.

I do think it's a fair question - if the small ball is as bad as it seems, is it really the better option compared to putting Wright in? At least Wright shows some flashes here and there - and can develop. I don't know how much we can develop small ball in the middle of the season?

I presume to know exactly nothing, and defer to yours and others basketball expertise.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
Not sure why playing small ball is 'stupid'.

Small ball isn't stupid for a team built for it. We aren't. Right now we only have 3 ACC quality guards/wings. Jose, Okogie, and Jackson. Haywood MIGHT be if he gets back to 100% and adjusts. Alston isn't. Haywood should be playing about 10 minutes-15 minutes a game as a rest for Okogie and Jackson, and Alston maybe 5 or so when we try to steal minutes for Jose, assuming Moore isn't an option. When we go small, Alston is completely redundant on offense because he is just a far inferior version of Okogie and Jackson. In theory Haywood provides a 3 point shooter who spaces things out but in practice he doesn't do a good job of getting open for his shot and he also isn't back to 100%/hasn't shaken off the rust. Both have problems with poor movement off ball.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,874
Location
Oriental, NC
Playing small is a lot better if you have 3-4 shooters. UVA can play small. In fact, us going going small might allow them to put four great shooters on the floor with Salt. We do not want to see that lineup.
 

MidtownJacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
4,862
It isn't just cause though. The reason is to give us more actual depth for later in the year, and next year. People seem confused thinking the sole responsibility for a coach is to win the next game. It isn't. It's to do what's best for the program. And sometimes that means sacrificing short term loss for long term gain. It's also not calling for either Wright or Cole to take minutes away from Ben or Gueye. It's calling for them to come in when one of those have to sit instead of the stupid small ball we've tried to do throughout the year. Us winning isn't contingent on Alston wondering aimlessly on the perimeter those 10 minutes when Gueye needs to sit.

Yeah I am a cubs fan so I know all about the proverbial “next season”. My point remains that until we are at a point this season where we aren’t in the hunt I wouldn’t want to see us cannibalize wins for playing time. Either the guys put up on practice and earn some minutes or we stay shallow until we get bit by the injury bug.

I’m not saying it’s the only way, or even the undisputed best way to play. Just that I support it and agree with the objective of chasing wins while they’re on the table. If the guys stay healthy and their bodies hold up to the current rotation I am all for riding the guys down the stretch. Then dealing with player development in practice, offseason and spring development cycles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
Yeah I am a cubs fan so I know all about the proverbial “next season”. My point remains that until we are at a point this season where we aren’t in the hunt I wouldn’t want to see us cannibalize wins for playing time. Either the guys put up on practice and earn some minutes or we stay shallow until we get bit by the injury bug.

Playing Wright or Cole the minutes that have been going to the small ball line up isn't cannibalizing wins though. That is part of the point. There is a long term good for playing them, getting experience, without much, if any, of a short term cost, because the small ball line up isn't good and hasn't worked at all this season.
 

MidtownJacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
4,862
Playing Wright or Cole the minutes that have been going to the small ball line up isn't cannibalizing wins though. That is part of the point. There is a long term good for playing them, getting experience, without much, if any, of a short term cost, because the small ball line up isn't good and hasn't worked at all this season.

Yeah that’s a solid point. I agree we would see more utility from their development as opposed to the small ball line up. What I don’t know is if Pastner (not partner as my early typo labeled him) is trying to throw a different offensive look at the opposing team to shake them out of whatever defensive alignment their running. If that’s the case it seems like subbing a worse player for a stronger one in the same offense would hurt us equally badly as the small ball we dislike.

Coaching is, as you mentioned earlier, hard and about more than just winning the next game. I love talking strategy and dissecting decisions as much as the next guy, but you couldn’t pay me enough money to do it for a job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,850
Playing Wright or Cole the minutes that have been going to the small ball line up isn't cannibalizing wins though. That is part of the point. There is a long term good for playing them, getting experience, without much, if any, of a short term cost, because the small ball line up isn't good and hasn't worked at all this season.

I find this to be a patently false statement.
They have won 3 of 4 ACC games playing a significant number of min in a small ball lineup each game. Would they have won those games playing non-small ball in those min, the staff seems to think no.
I know Pastner is alot more comfortable with Haywood in on the defensive end than either Wright or Cole as he has mentioned in post game interviews that he likes Haywood in the middle of the 1-3-1 with his long arms as he gets deflections.

I'd love to see Wright and/or Cole get more playing time, but only when they have earned the opportunity through good practices.

On a great note - the game tomorrow is sold out.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,874
Location
Oriental, NC
CJP will play whichever lineup is working. Or, rather, if a lineup is not working he will make the switches he thinks he needs to make.

At ND we played six guys (Cole played two minutes). Gueye only played 24 minutes, so we played small for 14 minutes that game. I think it is interesting that he chose Cole to play instead of Wright. CBG was still hurt, so he was not an option. Moore, of course, was not playing. Ben, Jose, and JO all played 40 minutes.

It was virtually the same story at home against Miami. This time it was Wright who got the two minutes. Ben, Jose, and JO "only" played 39 minutes this time, but we went small for 15 minutes.

Against Yale, JO got into foul trouble and sat a good bit. CGB returned, but only played nine minutes. I wonder if he would have played if JO had not been on the bench for so long.

At home against ND, CGB played a lot. But the minutes he stole were Alston's, with Tadric moving to the 2. Ben and Jose played 40 minutes and JO played 39. We played small for 19 minutes.

Against Pitt, AD exploded. So he played more minutes. I lost track of how much we played with only one big. Probably about ten minutes.

This small lineup thing has occupied my GT thoughts more than it should. But, AD stepped up against Pitt when he really needed to. CGB ws getting a lot of minutes while he was sitting. These guys are teammates, but they are competing for their share of those 200 minutes. I still think we are better with size in the lineup most of time, but ND, Miami and Pitt all have relatively small lineups. This may not work against UVA. They are much bigger and more physical. They remind me of some of the old Big 10 teams that had 500 pounds down on the blocks and dared you to come inside.
 
Messages
1,403
Tonight's game is big. It feels similar to the game that created the "Thriller Dome." The ugly gold. We win tonight, and we most definitely can, this season just got interesting. I'm feeling good about tonight.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
I find this to be a patently false statement.
They have won 3 of 4 ACC games playing a significant number of min in a small ball lineup each game. Would they have won those games playing non-small ball in those min, the staff seems to think no.
I know Pastner is alot more comfortable with Haywood in on the defensive end than either Wright or Cole as he has mentioned in post game interviews that he likes Haywood in the middle of the 1-3-1 with his long arms as he gets deflections.
.

Just because we won with some small ball doesn't mean small ball was the reason, or even a contributing reason, for it. Against Pitt we built the huge lead without it, then when we went to it, they immediately gained momentum. Pretty much every time we have gone small through out the year it's been bad. We tried it early and it bit us against Grambling, when we decided to go small even without having okogie. And yes, I know the staff seems to like it. They also had AD floating around the perimeter most of the OOC schedule. We got better when they realized their mistake and changed how they used him.
 

YlJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,254
Just so I understand it was a 'mistake' to play Lammers at the 5 spot where he was all ACC year and projected all ACC this year? Have to admit I don't follow that logic even recognizing they knew they needed to replace Q this year. Playing Lammers out of position on offense was rectifying a mistake. I am really not sure it is going to work going forward even with AD's one good game.

You may need to get ready for tomorrow as UVA will play one big about half of the game. We will either go small to match them or see if AD can punish them for going small. I am not ready to bet on AD and expect we go small ourselves to defend the 3 better.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
Just so I understand it was a 'mistake' to play Lammers at the 5 spot where he was all ACC year and projected all ACC this year? Have to admit I don't follow that logic even recognizing they knew they needed to replace Q this year. Playing Lammers out of position on offense was rectifying a mistake. I am really not sure it is going to work going forward even with AD's one good game.

You may need to get ready for tomorrow as UVA will play one big about half of the game. We will either go small to match them or see if AD can punish them for going small. I am not ready to bet on AD and expect we go small ourselves to defend the 3 better.

What? Keeping Gueye in the post doesn't mean Lammers is suddenly in a different position especially since Lammers has never been a low post player. It was a mistake trying to play a low post player in a role that had him outside the perimeter a majority of the time, especially when your center doesn't really go to the low post anyways.
 
Top