We need a second option

[YlJacket]

Preamble - I like the CDS hire. I like his press conferences. I think he has the most gravitas we have had at McTit since Hewitt in his heyday. The recruits coming in are a level above what we have had.

But having said that doesn't mean I don't have a bone to pick with the way he is approaching the offensive structure this year with a comment from the peanut gallery. And I am going to use the UVA press conference comments to make my point. So here goes. It is a message board anyway.

We initiate our offense with either a straight high ball screen for the PG or a little screen to get the ball to a wing (usually Kelly) before the same high ball screen. The idea is to get a guard into the lane with a hard roll by the 5 to draw help into the lane. There have been games like Duke where this action works well and we have multiple options for lobs or kicks to open wings and this set works well. We also have games like Cincy, FSU or UVA where for different reasons be they switching everything (FSU), absolutely locking us down on closeouts (Cincy) or just good overall D (UVA) we become a perimeter based team needing to basically freelance and as stated by CDS "share the sugar" by passing the ball and looking to drive when we have an advantage. This is great when you have Tatum and Brown on the wings who can create against pretty much anyone but not so great when you have middle of the road ACC talent trying to find an advantage on their own from the perimeter.

I will now go to his UVA press conference where he was not happy about the lack of mental toughness from his team regarding their commitment to go over the multiple downscreens UVA runs every time down court. FWIW they are really good at running this as a curl (hardest cut to guard in basketball) with options for flairing out for 3's or simply going up top to redo the offense. Point being UVA uses structure and set patterns to the extreme to create advantages for their players that they can take advantage of. We don't use structure much at all beyond the high ball screen. So CDS was unhappy we were not tough enough to stay after all the structure UVA made us go through but my point is we don't stress opposing defenses with our structure much at all. So what I want is a second option that we can go to when the high ball screen action isn't working that we can default to which gives our wings an advantage off of secondary picks or movement that they can take advantage of for shots or drives - rather than having to create that advantage themselves. It doesn't have to be as claustrophobic as UVA's structure is but it isn't hard to set up downscreens or secondary action that gives college kids the structure and advantages they need over Tatum/Brown.

Secondary points - it is a well known fact that teams - especially college teams - have a lot more defensive energy when they are having offensive success. Pretty blunt but I think CDS is expecting a lot of defensive toughness but he isn't helping to provide easy offense to contribute to that. It is more a pro approach than college approach IMHO.

I am watching UNC beat down Wake using an offensive structure very similar to what CDS wants to employ at GT. It is a high screen or two and then create. The differences are they have a ton more talent overall and especially a PG way above George (who I like but still need to develop) and they are committed to transition to find advantages which we are not - at least not yet.

Long winding road to this point - I think we need CDS to put a second option into the offensive scheme to provide the mid level ACC players he has a structure that gives them a schematic advantage they can use rather than expecting them to create their own advantage if the initial offensive concept doesn't work. At least until he has the high end ACC talent he has recruited and wants to recruit.

 

[awbuzz]

I.e. a plan to use the talent we have, not what we wish we had.

 

[gte447f]

I share some of your frustration about the offensive concepts, but I am willing to be patient. I think CDS has answers/concepts that are slowly creeping onto the court as the players learn to play his way.

For example, a couple of games back, Wacie started from the left corner and ran a curl off of a double screen set by a wing and a high post. He received a pass from the point position or opposite wing and had a cake walk down the lane for a layup. He ran the same play later and was open, but didn’t receive the pass.

There are a few other examples I have seen, but I won’t try to explain them because I probably won’t do a good job describing them.

Kelly is particularly active making cuts early in some possessions, but he rarely gets the ball.

I do agree with you though, that I would like to see a little more variety.

One thing I would like to see is some sort of baseline/backdoor cutting action. It seems like it should be available, since we often have at least one if not two guys spotted up at the corner 3 position.

 

[YlJacket]

I am willing to be patient too as I expect CDS is using the structure to show high-end Atlanta recruits the system they’re gonna be able to play in and get to the NBA in. I get that

And I have seen some neat one off like you have including a really neat flex action that got Coleman open threes in the corner.

I just want basic structure that they can go to after the highball screen doesn’t work that gets them the kind of advantage they need against ACC competition

 

[rdhanson.atl]

I don't understand basketball as well as most people, but it looks like we are too happy to settle for an outside shot of some kind, rather than trying to work inside. It's my opinion that even the unsuccessful attempts inside are helpful, because it frees up the outside a little. It looked like we were doing that during our comeback attempt vs. UVA, but we started it too late. We are taller than last year, but can you see any difference?

We do move the ball around more than the past few years, and I think that's good.

 

[stinger78]

When the cut lane isn’t open the team gets lazy with nothing but a perimeter passing offense. I like the analysis here, but this team has to learn how to get the ball into the high post and our man in the high post to power step to the basket and draw fouls. That is hard work though.

 

[MtnWasp]

No matter the coach and no matter the "scheme," there has always been fans kvetching that our coach, whoever it is, is not using a "scheme" that optimizes the talent when the team has not or is not winning.

If a team doesn't have a dominant offensive talent, guys who can just take the defense one on one and score efficiently, then all a "scheme" is is the pattern of screens the coach employs on offense to get his players open shots, and how they choose to defend the pattern of screens on defense.

Coaching acumen does not originate from a coach choosing the "magic Scheme" but to get the players to execute the chosen screening patterns and to defend the opposition's screens optimally and efficiently.

UVA is the perfect example: The guy runs the same small number of sets of screening patterns over and over again. His offense is painfully deliberate and not that much fun to watch but because the coach is able to get his players to execute his actions efficiently. Fans put up with it because he wins. If he didn't win, fans would run him out of Charlottsville on a rail with his "scheme."

Teams lose because:
1. they don't have the talent, size or speed to either score and defend even if the players know how and are trying hard to execute.
2. They do have the talent, size and athleticism to score on open shots but they do not execute their screening patterns efficiently.
3. They do have the talent, size and athleticism but they do not efficiently defend the opposition's screening patterns.

Unlike Josh Pastner, Stoudamire has not complained about not having talent. He clearly thinks his players are not doing what he is asking them to do and he has told us why he does not think they are doing it. When GT is not executing efficiently it is because the opposition is playing with more competitive fire than his team is.

His contention is supported by the evidence that the team has shown games and stretches where they are executing efficiently on either end. If the players were confused or unable to execute what is being asked of them, then those failures wouldn't be a "sometimes" problem, even within the game.

We have several players who are contributors and we have various levels of athleticism, basketball IQ and motor. When the team is not playing well, we can see which players are having breakdowns and why they breakdown, whether they are physically over-matched, whether they just don't convert plays that they have shown many times that they can convert, whether they are mentally lost or are just getting out-hustled by the competition. It is all right there to be viewed.

Stoudamire was frustrated after the UVA game because his guys broke down on plays where he felt they were fully prepared by the staff.

Yet fans want to run back to the magic cauldron of "scheme." I'm not on board. Stoudamire sees a lack of competitive fire relative to the competition and frankly, I do not see that the players are being asked to integrate too many screening patterns nor that they are lost and not understanding what screens they are being asked to defend.

An offensive "scheme" is simply the screens that our players are being asked to execute. A defensive scheme is simply knowing how to defend the oppostions' screens. ALL the rest comes down to execution. Lots of different coaches have seen success with lots of different favored actions.

Too much is made of scheme.

 

[Peacone36]

No matter the coach and no matter the "scheme," there has always been fans kvetching that our coach, whoever it is, is not using a "scheme" that optimizes the talent when the team has not or is not winning.

If a team doesn't have a dominant offensive talent, guys who can just take the defense one on one and score efficiently, then all a "scheme" is is the pattern of screens the coach employs on offense to get his players open shots, and how they choose to defend the pattern of screens on defense.

Coaching acumen does not originate from a coach choosing the "magic Scheme" but to get the players to execute the chosen screening patterns and to defend the opposition's screens optimally and efficiently.

UVA is the perfect example: The guy runs the same small number of sets of screening patterns over and over again. His offense is painfully deliberate and not that much fun to watch but because the coach is able to get his players to execute his actions efficiently. Fans put up with it because he wins. If he didn't win, fans would run him out of Charlottsville on a rail with his "scheme."

Teams lose because:
1. they don't have the talent, size or speed to either score and defend even if the players know how and are trying hard to execute.
2. They do have the talent, size and athleticism to score on open shots but they do not execute their screening patterns efficiently.
3. They do have the talent, size and athleticism but they do not efficiently defend the opposition's screening patterns.

Unlike Josh Pastner, Stoudamire has not complained about not having talent. He clearly thinks his players are not doing what he is asking them to do and he has told us why he does not think they are doing it. When GT is not executing efficiently it is because the opposition is playing with more competitive fire than his team is.

His contention is supported by the evidence that the team has shown games and stretches where they are executing efficiently on either end. If the players were confused or unable to execute what is being asked of them, then those failures wouldn't be a "sometimes" problem, even within the game.

We have several players who are contributors and we have various levels of athleticism, basketball IQ and motor. When the team is not playing well, we can see which players are having breakdowns and why they breakdown, whether they are physically over-matched, whether they just don't convert plays that they have shown many times that they can convert, whether they are mentally lost or are just getting out-hustled by the competition. It is all right there to be viewed.

Stoudamire was frustrated after the UVA game because his guys broke down on plays where he felt they were fully prepared by the staff.

Yet fans want to run back to the magic cauldron of "scheme." I'm not on board. Stoudamire sees a lack of competitive fire relative to the competition and frankly, I do not see that the players are being asked to integrate too many screening patterns nor that they are lost and not understanding what screens they are being asked to defend.

An offensive "scheme" is simply the screens that our players are being asked to execute. A defensive scheme is simply knowing how to defend the oppostions' screens. ALL the rest comes down to execution. Lots of different coaches have seen success with lots of different favored actions.

Too much is made of scheme.

Agreed. Scheme is more of a football thing. If you watch enough CBB you'll see that most teams run a lot of the same basic action, high ball screen hand off BS. The set plays are what sets coaches apart in my mind, such as the elevator screens that Bennett used to run for Kyle Guy. Those were a beautiful thing.

You can't teach height or motor, players either have it or they don't. Josh Okogie spoiled us.

 

[stinger78]

Agreed. Scheme is more of a football thing. If you watch enough CBB you'll see that most teams run a lot of the same basic action, high ball screen hand off BS. The set plays are what sets coaches apart in my mind, such as the elevator screens that Bennett used to run for Kyle Guy. Those were a beautiful thing.

You can't teach height or motor, players either have it or they don't. Josh Okogie and Grand Theft Alvarado spoiled us.

FTFY.

 

[Peacone36]

FTFY.

 

[YlJacket]

No matter the coach and no matter the "scheme," there has always been fans kvetching that our coach, whoever it is, is not using a "scheme" that optimizes the talent when the team has not or is not winning.

If a team doesn't have a dominant offensive talent, guys who can just take the defense one on one and score efficiently, then all a "scheme" is is the pattern of screens the coach employs on offense to get his players open shots, and how they choose to defend the pattern of screens on defense.

Coaching acumen does not originate from a coach choosing the "magic Scheme" but to get the players to execute the chosen screening patterns and to defend the opposition's screens optimally and efficiently.

UVA is the perfect example: The guy runs the same small number of sets of screening patterns over and over again. His offense is painfully deliberate and not that much fun to watch but because the coach is able to get his players to execute his actions efficiently. Fans put up with it because he wins. If he didn't win, fans would run him out of Charlottsville on a rail with his "scheme."

Teams lose because:
1. they don't have the talent, size or speed to either score and defend even if the players know how and are trying hard to execute.
2. They do have the talent, size and athleticism to score on open shots but they do not execute their screening patterns efficiently.
3. They do have the talent, size and athleticism but they do not efficiently defend the opposition's screening patterns.

Unlike Josh Pastner, Stoudamire has not complained about not having talent. He clearly thinks his players are not doing what he is asking them to do and he has told us why he does not think they are doing it. When GT is not executing efficiently it is because the opposition is playing with more competitive fire than his team is.

His contention is supported by the evidence that the team has shown games and stretches where they are executing efficiently on either end. If the players were confused or unable to execute what is being asked of them, then those failures wouldn't be a "sometimes" problem, even within the game.

We have several players who are contributors and we have various levels of athleticism, basketball IQ and motor. When the team is not playing well, we can see which players are having breakdowns and why they breakdown, whether they are physically over-matched, whether they just don't convert plays that they have shown many times that they can convert, whether they are mentally lost or are just getting out-hustled by the competition. It is all right there to be viewed.

Stoudamire was frustrated after the UVA game because his guys broke down on plays where he felt they were fully prepared by the staff.

Yet fans want to run back to the magic cauldron of "scheme." I'm not on board. Stoudamire sees a lack of competitive fire relative to the competition and frankly, I do not see that the players are being asked to integrate too many screening patterns nor that they are lost and not understanding what screens they are being asked to defend.

An offensive "scheme" is simply the screens that our players are being asked to execute. A defensive scheme is simply knowing how to defend the oppostions' screens. ALL the rest comes down to execution. Lots of different coaches have seen success with lots of different favored actions.

Too much is made of scheme.

You might listen to what CDS actually said and look at what I wrote before you go all cliche.

His comment about breaking down after being prepared by the staff was about defense. UVA ran their downscreen and curl action multiple times per possession and we broke down after defending it 2 or 3 times. He was right but it had nothing to do with what I wrote about the offense with the exception that I do believe the more success teams have on the offensive end the harder they continuously play D - with some rare exceptions.

On offense we have games where initiating an offense through the high ball screen action is a problem. It gets taken away from us by switching everything or other defensive schemes. If you don't see that as a problem I don't know what to say to you except watch the games a little more intently. We then revert to a free flow perimeter game dependent on a wing being able to penetrate or get his own shot. Again if you don't see this and consider it an issue watch the games a little more intently.

I specifically didn't say we had to have a UVA level scheme of repeated downscreen curl or similar approach but we would be better with some level of structure that helps our players when the initial screen roll gets taken away. You disagree - then fine - but going to a kevetching argument about fans is ridiculous given what I wrote and was speaking to. If you actually knew something about how to put together a scheme for a team to play you would know that but alas you don't.

 

[MWBATL]

My (admittedly very simplistic) view of GT basketball is that CDS (whom I still like as a hire) is trying to play NBA basketball with mid-level college players....and it simply doesn't work very well.

 

[Root4GT]

You might listen to what CDS actually said and look at what I wrote before you go all cliche.

His comment about breaking down after being prepared by the staff was about defense. UVA ran their downscreen and curl action multiple times per possession and we broke down after defending it 2 or 3 times. He was right but it had nothing to do with what I wrote about the offense with the exception that I do believe the more success teams have on the offensive end the harder they continuously play D - with some rare exceptions.

On offense we have games where initiating an offense through the high ball screen action is a problem. It gets taken away from us by switching everything or other defensive schemes. If you don't see that as a problem I don't know what to say to you except watch the games a little more intently. We then revert to a free flow perimeter game dependent on a wing being able to penetrate or get his own shot. Again if you don't see this and consider it an issue watch the games a little more intently.

I specifically didn't say we had to have a UVA level scheme of repeated downscreen curl or similar approach but we would be better with some level of structure that helps our players when the initial screen roll gets taken away. You disagree - then fine - but going to a kevetching argument about fans is ridiculous given what I wrote and was speaking to. If you actually knew something about how to put together a scheme for a team to play you would know that but alas you don't.

We run a lot of screens for the wings coming up from the corners trying for an open look or penetration from either side of the court off the screen. We do not run screens like we did in the 1980s when Price ran through about 4 screens every possession. Of course we don't have any player of Price's ability or skill set either.

One issue we have is neither Dowuona nor Claude are effective scorers. I wish Claude would put up more shots after getting offensive rebounds or the ball in the paint. He generally stands and gets tied up or tosses it back out to the top of the 3 point arc. He is a solid Foul shooter. Draw contact and get to the line.

It will be interesting to see how the GT offense progresses from year to year. Currently is goes between very good and very bad in a matter of minutes.

 

[stinger78]

I’ve not seen a good inside power move by a Tech big in a long time. Probably since Lammers.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

And, if we win our next game, I suspect it will be with the same “scheme” but with the players playing harder. And taking advantage of breakdowns by the other team.

We’ve said it many times. This will be an up and down year. I don’t think the coaching has anything to do with that.

 

[MtnWasp]

we would be better with some level of structure that helps our players when the initial screen roll gets taken away. You disagree - then fine -

Oh please. We are not consistently stuffed on a particular set, and just because the defense stuffs an initial action doesn't mean it was the wrong set to initiate a possession and that something else would have worked better. What percentage of college basketball possessions result in a shot off the initial action?

Stoudamire wants the team to execute his sets better. You want him to run different sets. The hole in your argument is the assumption that the players would execute a different action better.

And just because a coach wants a team to be able to run actions fluidly based on what the defense is doing instead of having it scripted and executed by play-call from the sideline doesn't mean the team is not structured.

Your issue is that Stoudamire is doing things differently than you would and therefore, you are going to blame everything that goes wrong on the fact that he doesn't do things the way you would. In January of year one, it is getting tiresome.

Have you emailed or contacted the coach with your concerns?

 

[iceeater1969]

No matter the coach and no matter the "scheme," there has always been fans kvetching that our coach, whoever it is, is not using a "scheme" that optimizes the talent when the team has not or is not winning.

If a team doesn't have a dominant offensive talent, guys who can just take the defense one on one and score efficiently, then all a "scheme" is is the pattern of screens the coach employs on offense to get his players open shots, and how they choose to defend the pattern of screens on defense.

Coaching acumen does not originate from a coach choosing the "magic Scheme" but to get the players to execute the chosen screening patterns and to defend the opposition's screens optimally and efficiently.

UVA is the perfect example: The guy runs the same small number of sets of screening patterns over and over again. His offense is painfully deliberate and not that much fun to watch but because the coach is able to get his players to execute his actions efficiently. Fans put up with it because he wins. If he didn't win, fans would run him out of Charlottsville on a rail with his "scheme."

Teams lose because:
1. they don't have the talent, size or speed to either score and defend even if the players know how and are trying hard to execute.
2. They do have the talent, size and athleticism to score on open shots but they do not execute their screening patterns efficiently.
3. They do have the talent, size and athleticism but they do not efficiently defend the opposition's screening patterns.

Unlike Josh Pastner, Stoudamire has not complained about not having talent. He clearly thinks his players are not doing what he is asking them to do and he has told us why he does not think they are doing it. When GT is not executing efficiently it is because the opposition is playing with more competitive fire than his team is.

His contention is supported by the evidence that the team has shown games and stretches where they are executing efficiently on either end. If the players were confused or unable to execute what is being asked of them, then those failures wouldn't be a "sometimes" problem, even within the game.

We have several players who are contributors and we have various levels of athleticism, basketball IQ and motor. When the team is not playing well, we can see which players are having breakdowns and why they breakdown, whether they are physically over-matched, whether they just don't convert plays that they have shown many times that they can convert, whether they are mentally lost or are just getting out-hustled by the competition. It is all right there to be viewed.

Stoudamire was frustrated after the UVA game because his guys broke down on plays where he felt they were fully prepared by the staff.

Yet fans want to run back to the magic cauldron of "scheme." I'm not on board. Stoudamire sees a lack of competitive fire relative to the competition and frankly, I do not see that the players are being asked to integrate too many screening patterns nor that they are lost and not understanding what screens they are being asked to defend.

An offensive "scheme" is simply the screens that our players are being asked to execute. A defensive scheme is simply knowing how to defend the oppostions' screens. ALL the rest comes down to execution. Lots of different coaches have seen success with lots of different favored actions.

Too much is made of scheme.

Kelly is a mystery to me. 2 freshman want the ball way more tgan he does.
Reminds me of Devoe and Usher
Imo, we need Kelly to lead team by adding tough defense to his style of play.

 

[78pike]

Kelly is a mystery to me. 2 freshman want the ball way more tgan he does.
Reminds me of Devoe and Usher
Imo, we need Kelly to lead team by adding tough defense to his style of play.

I'm surprised to read your last comment. Kelly is playing the best defense of his entire tenure at Tech IMO.

 

[YlJacket]

Oh please. We are not consistently stuffed on a particular set, and just because the defense stuffs an initial action doesn't mean it was the wrong set to initiate a possession and that something else would have worked better. What percentage of college basketball possessions result in a shot off the initial action?

Stoudamire wants the team to execute his sets better. You want him to run different sets. The hole in your argument is the assumption that the players would execute a different action better.

And just because a coach wants a team to be able to run actions fluidly based on what the defense is doing instead of having it scripted and executed by play-call from the sideline doesn't mean the team is not structured.

Your issue is that Stoudamire is doing things differently than you would and therefore, you are going to blame everything that goes wrong on the fact that he doesn't do things the way you would. In January of year one, it is getting tiresome.

Have you emailed or contacted the coach with your concerns?

Again you didn't read what I wrote. One day maybe. I said I wanted something for when defenses take away the high screen action we run all the time. Not a second separate set.
And you obviously didn't read anything else in this thread as I said I like what he is doing and understand why he is running the high screen action. And I didn't blame him for anything - simply offered a discussion point based on something that to anyone with a real eye wouldn't argue about. And I didn't get all pompous and cliche about anything unlike your approach.

What is tiresome is a response like this.

 

[YlJacket]

We run a lot of screens for the wings coming up from the corners trying for an open look or penetration from either side of the court off the screen. We do not run screens like we did in the 1980s when Price ran through about 4 screens every possession. Of course we don't have any player of Price's ability or skill set either.

One issue we have is neither Dowuona nor Claude are effective scorers. I wish Claude would put up more shots after getting offensive rebounds or the ball in the paint. He generally stands and gets tied up or tosses it back out to the top of the 3 point arc. He is a solid Foul shooter. Draw contact and get to the line.

It will be interesting to see how the GT offense progresses from year to year. Currently is goes between very good and very bad in a matter of minutes.

To me Dowuana is not part of the discussion. I haven't seen him and Ndongo on the floor together much if at all that I can recall. I don't think they want to play Ndongo in the corner as a 4.

Claude is definitely not a scorer against ACC competition - especially at the 4. Duke ignored him and I expect Pitt to do the same tonight. To me the key going forward is Gapare or Coleman being able to play solid enough D to stay on the floor against a 2 big setup so we can have some offensive threat at the 4. So far they haven't consistently so we end up with Claude.