Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
We need a second option
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MtnWasp" data-source="post: 995555" data-attributes="member: 4110"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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." </p><p></p><p>Teams lose because: </p><p>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. </p><p>2. They do have the talent, size and athleticism to score on open shots but they do not execute their screening patterns efficiently.</p><p>3. They do have the talent, size and athleticism but they do not efficiently defend the opposition's screening patterns. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Stoudamire was frustrated after the UVA game because his guys broke down on plays where he felt they were fully prepared by the staff. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Too much is made of scheme.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MtnWasp, post: 995555, member: 4110"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the name of Georgia Tech's mascot?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
We need a second option
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top