joehamiltonfan14
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 445
I don’t disagree with the article - this season is disappointing and I don’t see a bright future with this program under Pastner given his inability to recruit. Hope I’m wrong though
What does Michael Cunningham have against
- Thread starter reckrider
- Start date
YlJacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,273
I think there is more potential/talent on this squad than this article gives credit for - but on the other side it is hard to argue with him given the results so far this year. The schedule gets easier in the second half and hopefully the young uns are growing up. Success and in reality an improvement in the record are what is needed to stop this kind of review.
Techster
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 18,394
GT is in a MUCH better place now than when Pastner took over.
However, in terms of this season, we are absolutely in desperation mode. If you're in last place, and you're not desperate to get out of it, then you've lost the plot. We should be a much better team than we are now...and Pastner's teams at GT have always been slow to start the season. Devoe and Usher, save a few games for each of them, have been playing out of their minds. Our organization on defense, the Pastner's calling card, has been a mess more times than we're use to. Unfortunately, none of our post guys have blossomed in the mold of Lammers/Banks/Wright yet. Now we're seeing what happens to Pastner's defense when there's no true anchor in the post.
That being said, there is a glimmer of hope starting to build. Some of the young guys seem to be "getting it". Smith, Coleman appear to be playing better lately. Maxwell can be a flat out scorer, but he can also go ice cold (see UNC). What we need from them is consistency to help Devoe and Usher. Getting Howard back will be huge from a defensive standpoint.
By my count, we could have at least 4 more realistic wins than (Wisconsin, Louisville, ND, Miami-OH), and possibly a couple more if the young guys were playing like they are now. With young players, consistency is the key...and they have not been consistent with their production.
Hopefully we'll see a different team the rest of the season.
However, in terms of this season, we are absolutely in desperation mode. If you're in last place, and you're not desperate to get out of it, then you've lost the plot. We should be a much better team than we are now...and Pastner's teams at GT have always been slow to start the season. Devoe and Usher, save a few games for each of them, have been playing out of their minds. Our organization on defense, the Pastner's calling card, has been a mess more times than we're use to. Unfortunately, none of our post guys have blossomed in the mold of Lammers/Banks/Wright yet. Now we're seeing what happens to Pastner's defense when there's no true anchor in the post.
That being said, there is a glimmer of hope starting to build. Some of the young guys seem to be "getting it". Smith, Coleman appear to be playing better lately. Maxwell can be a flat out scorer, but he can also go ice cold (see UNC). What we need from them is consistency to help Devoe and Usher. Getting Howard back will be huge from a defensive standpoint.
By my count, we could have at least 4 more realistic wins than (Wisconsin, Louisville, ND, Miami-OH), and possibly a couple more if the young guys were playing like they are now. With young players, consistency is the key...and they have not been consistent with their production.
Hopefully we'll see a different team the rest of the season.
- Messages
- 11,726
Links (he doesn't "thread" well):
And the answer to the original "What does Michael Cunningham have against GT/Pastner/etc?"-> nothing. He's doing his job trying to sell papers and get clicks.
lv20gt
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,588
The article doesn't really lie about amuch but the slant is certainly not favorable.
It starts with the title. After one good season....
Two years ago we finished 11-9 in conference good for fifth place. He says we were outside the bubble which was true, but we were also winners of 7 of our previous 9 playing real well. Had we played in the ACCT it is possible we'd have played our way in. Regardless, I think the first winning ACC record since 03-04 qualifies as a good season. Yes, there was the black cloud of the OOC that hurt that year, but that was in large part due to the loss of Jose for the majority of it, along with the absence of Ush who had to sit out a year.
Second, he talks about how a one and done NCAAT appearance in five years isn't aiming high, which is again true, but it also ignores the situation he took over. Pastner was the easy winner of the ACC CoY in year one despite having a losing conference record and missing the NCAAT. So no, just making one NCAAT isn't aiming high, but it is certainly constitutes a successful hire.
Third, he points to no underclassman having played more than half the available minutes as support for "few indications of something better [than this year] being built. However, here are the stats.
We've played 16 games and 2 OTs. That means we have had a total of 3250 minutes available I believe. For an individual player they could have played at most 650 minutes.
First off, Coleman has played 339 minutes, which is over half available.
Second off, Sturdivant has played 365 minutes which is over half available. By eligibility he is a sophomore. Of course the writer is counting him as a junior. Same with Howard who has 2 years remaining after this.
Third, Smith has played 292 minutes, just under the half of available minutes mark. The problem is Smith didn't play in two games. He was sick for the GSU game, and I don't know if he was available for the Duke game. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, he's averaging over 20 which is probably why the writer chose it as half the available minutes instead.
Fourth, We have played underclassmen 1083 total minutes not including Howard or Sturdivant which is right at a third of our minutes. Including Howard and Sturdivant (so using eligibility) that is 1744 or nearly 54% of our minutes going to players who should be (barring transfers).
For comparison, in 18-19 we had 6425 total minutes played according to NCAAT. Of those, 3160 were played by players who would go on to be on last year's team. That is 49%. Now, that does go up to 65.5% if we include guys who would eventually transfer out but the main point is, barring transfers, we are getting minutes for young guys similar to what we were doing two years prior to our championship year. The main difference is we have multiple guys splitting the minutes like Kyle+Deivon and Coleman + Kelly instead of just one guy. But that's a good thing as depth was a major issue for us last year.
So again, overall the piece is accurate in most ways, but the interpretation certainly leaves something to be desired.
It starts with the title. After one good season....
Two years ago we finished 11-9 in conference good for fifth place. He says we were outside the bubble which was true, but we were also winners of 7 of our previous 9 playing real well. Had we played in the ACCT it is possible we'd have played our way in. Regardless, I think the first winning ACC record since 03-04 qualifies as a good season. Yes, there was the black cloud of the OOC that hurt that year, but that was in large part due to the loss of Jose for the majority of it, along with the absence of Ush who had to sit out a year.
Second, he talks about how a one and done NCAAT appearance in five years isn't aiming high, which is again true, but it also ignores the situation he took over. Pastner was the easy winner of the ACC CoY in year one despite having a losing conference record and missing the NCAAT. So no, just making one NCAAT isn't aiming high, but it is certainly constitutes a successful hire.
Third, he points to no underclassman having played more than half the available minutes as support for "few indications of something better [than this year] being built. However, here are the stats.
We've played 16 games and 2 OTs. That means we have had a total of 3250 minutes available I believe. For an individual player they could have played at most 650 minutes.
First off, Coleman has played 339 minutes, which is over half available.
Second off, Sturdivant has played 365 minutes which is over half available. By eligibility he is a sophomore. Of course the writer is counting him as a junior. Same with Howard who has 2 years remaining after this.
Third, Smith has played 292 minutes, just under the half of available minutes mark. The problem is Smith didn't play in two games. He was sick for the GSU game, and I don't know if he was available for the Duke game. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, he's averaging over 20 which is probably why the writer chose it as half the available minutes instead.
Fourth, We have played underclassmen 1083 total minutes not including Howard or Sturdivant which is right at a third of our minutes. Including Howard and Sturdivant (so using eligibility) that is 1744 or nearly 54% of our minutes going to players who should be (barring transfers).
For comparison, in 18-19 we had 6425 total minutes played according to NCAAT. Of those, 3160 were played by players who would go on to be on last year's team. That is 49%. Now, that does go up to 65.5% if we include guys who would eventually transfer out but the main point is, barring transfers, we are getting minutes for young guys similar to what we were doing two years prior to our championship year. The main difference is we have multiple guys splitting the minutes like Kyle+Deivon and Coleman + Kelly instead of just one guy. But that's a good thing as depth was a major issue for us last year.
So again, overall the piece is accurate in most ways, but the interpretation certainly leaves something to be desired.
MWBATL
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,589
My only uninformed comment is that I am beginning to wonder about basic coaching strategies on this team. Especially on offense, where we seem to be sticking to something that doesn't fit the athletes we have and their skill sets.
i hope I turn out to b e dead wrong, but I watch other teams (see Miami) play differently and wonder why they can do that and we cannot.
i hope I turn out to b e dead wrong, but I watch other teams (see Miami) play differently and wonder why they can do that and we cannot.
- Messages
- 5,901
This season has been a disappointment - even with my reduced expectations - but next season is very important.
I expected this team to step back compared to last season. From day 1 I said I don't expect Saba or Meka to be significant contributors until their Jr seasons, I just didn't think they would be able to make that jump any earlier than that. Most of the data from the last 10 years suggests it is the Jr yr that the bigs make the jump. Howard getting hurt just compounded that,
Losing Bubba has been a bigger hit than I hoped for. I expected he would play 25-30 mpg and could potentially be a starter just based on his defensive play and ability to protect the ball. Without him our perimeter defense has really taken a hit.
Going 0-fer in fall recruiting for the 2 time in 4 years is a bad look and suggests there may need to be a staff shakeup in the offseason to bring in a stronger recruiting asst. Right now the current staff simply is not very good with HS recruiting -especially in GA.
I expect this team to finish below ,500 this year - there are just too many holes that opponents are currently able to exploit - no production from the post, mediocre PG play.
I wish we had pursued Braelen Bridges last spring - he would have fit some of our needs well.
I like the look of our young perimeter players but they need time to develop and gain experience.
Much like Forbes was able to do with Wake this year, the staff needs to hit the jackpot on a couple of guys in the portal this spring.
I expected a step back this year, but not as big as one as we are facing. Next year is a critical year for this staff to determine whether they should continue to be the staff for the long term or if it is time to move on. They deserved their extension last spring - but it was always sort of set up that it would have to be revisited in 2-3 yrs to see whether the current staff should continue.
My personal take on the current staff is that I have alot of faith in their ability to prepare for games and have the team ready and playing hard. I have questions about whether they can recruit at a high enough level consistently enough to be successful over a long term. Next year the staff has to go 3-3 in order to be successful imo (good portal recruiting this spring, good HS recruiting in the fall, post-season year on the court).
I expected this team to step back compared to last season. From day 1 I said I don't expect Saba or Meka to be significant contributors until their Jr seasons, I just didn't think they would be able to make that jump any earlier than that. Most of the data from the last 10 years suggests it is the Jr yr that the bigs make the jump. Howard getting hurt just compounded that,
Losing Bubba has been a bigger hit than I hoped for. I expected he would play 25-30 mpg and could potentially be a starter just based on his defensive play and ability to protect the ball. Without him our perimeter defense has really taken a hit.
Going 0-fer in fall recruiting for the 2 time in 4 years is a bad look and suggests there may need to be a staff shakeup in the offseason to bring in a stronger recruiting asst. Right now the current staff simply is not very good with HS recruiting -especially in GA.
I expect this team to finish below ,500 this year - there are just too many holes that opponents are currently able to exploit - no production from the post, mediocre PG play.
I wish we had pursued Braelen Bridges last spring - he would have fit some of our needs well.
I like the look of our young perimeter players but they need time to develop and gain experience.
Much like Forbes was able to do with Wake this year, the staff needs to hit the jackpot on a couple of guys in the portal this spring.
I expected a step back this year, but not as big as one as we are facing. Next year is a critical year for this staff to determine whether they should continue to be the staff for the long term or if it is time to move on. They deserved their extension last spring - but it was always sort of set up that it would have to be revisited in 2-3 yrs to see whether the current staff should continue.
My personal take on the current staff is that I have alot of faith in their ability to prepare for games and have the team ready and playing hard. I have questions about whether they can recruit at a high enough level consistently enough to be successful over a long term. Next year the staff has to go 3-3 in order to be successful imo (good portal recruiting this spring, good HS recruiting in the fall, post-season year on the court).
Jack
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 274
I think it is harder for get to recruit players to come there because, I may be wrong, but the academics mite be harder than a lot of schools.
Root4GT
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,369
So what. That's how all papers operate. Is there a bigger point than how papers operate? Opinion pieces are staples of all news media. Cunningham did a good job on this one.
jbix80
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 968
Links (he doesn't "thread" well):
And the answer to the original "What does Michael Cunningham have against GT/Pastner/etc?"-> nothing. He's doing his job trying to sell papers and get clicks.
Thank you for posting the link. I’m a little ignorant to technology.
- Messages
- 11,726
Because what he’s trying to do has an impact on the value of the information. The opinion pieces are more entertainment than news. There have been deeper and more unbiased responses in this thread by fans who are trying to be objective.
Opinion pieces aren’t trying to be objective.
One good litmus test for the quality of the column is “if his opinion had differed from mine, was his column good enough to change my mind?”
It’s pretty clear that Cunningham stirred up a few people, but who did he inform or educate?
Swartz had a quick response poking holes in the facts he chose.
That doesn’t mean that we’re all satisfied with the offensive scheme (many of us aren’t) or this year’s defense (many of us aren’t) or some of the recruiting misses and the overall strength of our recruiting (we aren’t). Many posters here have had good insights into all those areas and more, and proposed remedies. Cunningham didn’t.
I’ve seen writers at the AJC write great articles or great columns; this is just one that filled a hole on a weekday.
GTbball2016
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,108
I just don’t think he recruits well enough to make GT a perennial tournament team. Sadly the one coach who I thought might be able to recruit once Pastner is gone and put together a great staff in the years to come got himself in trouble (J. Jack)
D-man44
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,806
Penny Hardaway is really winning games over at Memphis. It takes alot more than recruiting to be a good college HC. Jack doesn't have the credentials.
GTbball2016
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,108
I would take my chances 10 times out of 10 having the best talent instead of hoping and praying to get old and stay old in the NIL/portal era
D-man44
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,806
Dude you are longing for the Hewitt days lol
GTbball2016
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,108
Hewitt would have killed it in this era, IMO. He knew how to play the game to get top guys.
D-man44
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,806
He's very available lmao
Root4GT
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,369
It’s ok to disagree. Most GT fans don’t follow this or other GT message boards. People who live in the Greated Atlanta area read the AJC and most are clueless about GT BB. Cunningham did a solid job of giving perspective to that group of people. The Swarm is not his audience.