|
Replies: 52
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [14921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12314
Joined: 3/28/06
|
I think BB would be the first to tell you recruiting is not
Mar 24, 2015, 1:12 PM
|
|
one of his strengths (although I am supremely confident the facilities upgrades will pay long-term dividends just like they have in football) but I've been thinking:
Could the bball program benefit from hiring someone like Turnipseed to really market the bball program to recruits?
I'm not sure we have the desire to devote the resources to someone doing that full-time (and we likely don't have the product to promote in bball like we do in football) but it seems like that's done wonders for Dabo and Co. (not to mention directly responsible for sad, saggy ole SOS joining Twitter IMO).
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2565]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2242
Joined: 2/1/99
|
I think BB would be the first to tell you recruiting is not
Mar 24, 2015, 1:36 PM
|
|
Bring in that type marketing leader for all the Olympic sports' programs at Tiger Town. Can't urt and might well help. Baseball surely needs some new momentum and guidance.
We have lost some good recruits---T. J. Sapp is most obvious 1 right now---from the program and have to keep them if possible to do so. I expect to see Coleman and Filer to show up as contributors to their new schools, also. CU may need a staff member with skills at improving guard play--including shooting the ball for effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6937]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 22594
Joined: 5/4/03
|
Re:With all of that, we might as well clean house and start
Mar 24, 2015, 5:25 PM
|
|
over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2565]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2242
Joined: 2/1/99
|
I think BB would be the first to tell you recruiting is not
Mar 24, 2015, 1:43 PM
|
|
Bring in that type marketing leader for all the Olympic sports' programs at Tiger Town. Can't hurt and might well help. Baseball surely needs some new momentum and guidance.
We have lost some good recruits---T. J. Sapp is most obvious 1 right now---from the program and have to keep them if possible to do so. I expect to see Coleman and Filer to show up as contributors to their new schools, also. CU may need a staff member with skills at improving guard play--including shooting the ball for effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Coleman played at Temple this year
Mar 24, 2015, 1:46 PM
|
|
He was...meh. 12 minpg 3.8 ppg
Shot right at 30% from 3 and was a shockingly bad 4-14 from the FT line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [505]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 888
Joined: 3/26/13
|
Re: Coleman played at Temple this year
Mar 24, 2015, 4:22 PM
|
|
Scored 13 the other night for Temple playing in the NIT and WILL start next year....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111396]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73671
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67697]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115415
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I think BB would be the first to tell you recruiting is not
Mar 24, 2015, 2:35 PM
|
|
and who has recruited well at Clemson? On a sustained basis that is
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: I think BB would be the first to tell you recruiting is not
Mar 24, 2015, 3:07 PM
|
|
OP did a pretty solid job I though. I know some say he left us with nothing etc, but that kid Marcus Thornton that he had coming switched to Georgia when OP bolted. He played pretty well this past year. I liked OP's recuiting. Who was in OP's last class? I forget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: I think BB would be the first to tell you recruiting is not
Mar 24, 2015, 3:29 PM
|
|
OPs classes were similar in quality rankings wise as Brownell. Difference is OP always had times where upperclassmen were his top contributors. Shyatt at least left him with a balanced roster to build from.
Look at OPs first 4 years his best players were not his guys. His guys did not contribute a ton for the most part until they were upperclassmen.
That has always been the recipe for success at Clemson. Rely on upperclassmen to carry you after you develop them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: I think BB would be the first to tell you recruiting is not
Mar 24, 2015, 3:37 PM
|
|
I agree. That's why I really believe we will be solid next year and definitely the year after next for sure if Blossongame stays through his senior year and is healthy. On a different note, what's the word on what we will do with Rooks' open scholarship spot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10460]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7014
Joined: 5/14/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
Surprised there isn't a general marketing guru for the AD
Mar 24, 2015, 2:52 PM
|
|
and then let the specific programs build off a general marketing plan for the entire athletics department.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
I think you mistake what BB thinks of his program, and
Mar 24, 2015, 3:22 PM
|
|
that is quite poor of you. Don't try to put words in the man's mouth.
Let's turn this around a bit: why aren't "fans" pounding on Dabo about his recruiting and the need to get better? Despite his obvious focus on the need for talent, the so-called genius he and the Scott's bring to the area, the upgrade in facilities, and Clemson's history as a purely "football" school,
why does Dabo keep getting out-recruited by FSU?
Even this year's much ballyhooed class was ranked 2nd in the ACC to the Noles.
It's called "Brand" people. "Brand", pure and simple; and the Noles out recruit us each year based purely on that issue alone.
And Brad Brownell is swimming up such a river of bad "Brand" when it comes to Clemson Basketball, it's a coup when he gets competitive talent.
Don't mistake Clemson's bad image for incompetence by Brownell.
You do Brownell, Clemson, and the program a major and possible terminal injustice with that single mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [179]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 301
Joined: 9/13/99
|
All but around 5 schools get out-recruited by FSU every year
Mar 24, 2015, 4:18 PM
|
|
in football. In basketball, we get out-recruited by most division I programs in SC, Ga & NC. He needs a recruiter on staff and unfortunately bringing someone in now maybe too late. It takes time to build relationships. Not closing on the opportunities for 4-5 stars (Grant, the kid from Orangeburg(at unc), in state kids), kill your chances. AD & BOT have seen the formula that works, guessing BB will have 2 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
why does every one want to put 2 years on Brownell's future?
Mar 24, 2015, 5:40 PM
|
|
Every Clemson fan in orange jumped up and down when Spurrier announced he'd only coach another 2-3 years. And predictably they were right - the presumed limitation of years caused recruits for the USuCk's football team to start abandoning ship.
Why then would we believe that putting it out there that the fan base has decided to limit Brownell to 2 years isn't going to likewise cause possible recruits to shy away from Clemson basketball? One cannot be without the other - yet Board monkeys simply don't want to accept the possible consequences of their whining.
IMHO, You can talk about anything you want to regarding the program, but when you start talking about limiting futures you've crossed the line and moved into the AD role.
Sure people do it all the time - yet that doesn't make it right -
nor does it make it beneficial to the program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
can you do math?
Mar 24, 2015, 8:11 PM
|
|
2 years from now will be 7 total...
Do you think BB sat in front of TDP and said, "well, Terry Don, my plan is to go to the NCAAT the first year, then take 6-7 years to rebuild the program and try to get back"...
#####?
Your poetic reasoning is the why this bored needs to require a common cents test before posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
Poem of the day: York is a dork :)
Mar 25, 2015, 3:02 PM
|
|
and knows nothing about basketball.
Tell me York: did you have Wake Forest coming out of the EAST to go to the Final Four.
good for you, little buddy....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Deer epidummy......
Mar 25, 2015, 8:59 AM
[ in reply to why does every one want to put 2 years on Brownell's future? ] |
|
What did the ol ball sack accomplish that brownlee hasn't come close to accomplishing?
the ol ball sack took a perennial bottom dweller and turned them into a very good team.
Brownell has taken a middle of the pack team that had been to 4 straight NCAA tourneys and turned us into a team that couldn't even sniff the NIT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
no. Brownell took a team with dwindling talent level
Mar 25, 2015, 3:12 PM
|
|
versus the previous 4 years, added that to a non-starter of a recruiting class his first year because he was hired so late in the cycle, and is building the team admittedly slowly but surely back into a perennial NCAA/NIT challenger.
By the way - if OP left us so stacked with talent, then how come he left us? What? Cat got your tongue?
I don't know - since that didn't work out so well for you, maybe you'd like to now argue that Brownell's last two recruiting classes haven't in fact been his best. What? No comment?
Show some patience.
Grow up.
Get real with the facts: what OP left, what he didn't.
Heck - call up Brice Johnson and ask him if there was anything Brownell did wrong on the way to Brice committing to the Tar Heels. I can hear him laughing now....
But most of all,
understand that you're a statistic with a keyboard and not a coach. So your opinion is simply that, little more than an opinion, and it, by definition, is not sophisticated nor informed (nor apparently poetic) enough to be going around calling for someone's head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
so you want to play the "coach" card? ok
Mar 25, 2015, 3:18 PM
|
|
how do you explain BB's comments at his initial presser that this WAS NOT a rebuild job? Ok, so some guys left and now it is... who is that on?
I'm not a "fire BB" guy... but there is NO coach at ANY major D1 school that would tell you his plan was to take 6-8 years to build an NCAA/NIT contender. "NIT"?? Really?
The "KJ issue" is a moot point. Everyone says KJ was much better than expected. OK, we still didn't make the tourney. What if KJ had been where everyone though he'd be? Would BB have gotten an extension? The reasoning makes no sense.
It doesn't matter what you think about OP, how he left, why he left, etc... The fact remains he had 3 straight NCAA tournament teams.. and a 4th with his guys if you count BBs first year. He won more ACC games over a 3 year stretch than every school not named UNC or Duke.
Weaker ACC? maybe. But don't come on here and spout that "it takes 6-8 years to get it done"... when BB inherited an NCAAT team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
no, I want to play the reasonable/mature adult card...
Mar 25, 2015, 3:37 PM
|
|
Look York - stop focusing on the red herrings - it isn't how long it is taking, it is the way things developed over that time:
- dwindling talent from OP's pools and lost players from his first recruiting class meant that years 3-5 were low on talent and in years 4-5, low on senior talent.
- the loss of identity between Brownell and OP meant that Clemson had to start over with the HS sophs and juniors we were into when OP left. It was a culture change that didn't translate - certainly you don't blame Brownell for that. He is who they hired.
- the loss of his lead recruiter after year 3 meant significant redcution in traction gained in identity of the program with the local talent.
- the loss of Brice Johnson meant more than anyone couold ever know. Had he come to Clemson, you clowns would be asking why Dabo wasn't the savior that Brownell is. Yet the fact of how he was stolen by North Carolina shows every glaring historical deficiency that this program has. If you think that's on Brownell, there's literally no hope for you.
- the loss of KJ. Well it is what it is. KJ was a junior - I think we all know where this team could have been had he returned. Neither OP nor Barnes ever had to deal with hole in talent that losing a junior creates - especially at a place like Clemson where the talent pool is thin.
and finally - it does matter "why" OP left - I think he clearly stated to you and every other so-called Clemson fan that he wasn't going to have the same sort of success in years 6-8 that he had in years 3-5. He left while the getting was good, while his stock was at the highest. Can't blame him - personally DePaul looked like a great move. Well, I guess we see what hindsight means - nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Re: no. Brownell took a team with dwindling talent level
Mar 25, 2015, 4:32 PM
[ in reply to no. Brownell took a team with dwindling talent level ] |
|
Deer epidummy....
Let's take a look at the recruiting over the years for OP(btw his last class was his best on paper) and left brownell with 2 4*s and a 5* recruit. Far from this bare cupboard theory you have in place right?
According to Rivals:
OP recruited - 2 2*s, 21 3*s, 2 4*s, and 1 5* during his time in tiger town. an average of 3.07*s
Brownell has recruited - 13 3*s, 2 4*s and 1 not ranked due to being CC(djambo) an average of 3.13*s not including djambo. 2.93*s if you include a 0 for djambo.
So dwindling talent level? doesn't seem very accurate does it?
From what we've all heard is that OP left for more money and because he was tired of the lack of support from the administration for the basketball program.
Last 2 classes have been his best?
According to Rivals:
Last 2 classes:
2013 - 3 3*s and Djambo (djambo and rooks have transferred)
2014 - 4 * and a 3*
Lets take a look at the 2 years before that:
2011 - 4 3*s and a 4*
2012 - 5 3*s
So care to explain how his last 2 classes have been his best? cat got your tongue?
You keep talking about facts yet you keep harping on losing Brice Johnson as if that would've been some magic pill to save the program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
meaningless...
Mar 25, 2015, 4:44 PM
|
|
of the mentioned classes, how many of those guys actually enrolled at Clemson, and played for Brownell?
As to Brice Johnson, the fact that's he's a consistent low-post scorer and rebounder for a Top 15 program still in the Big Dance speaks for itself. I did not say he was a "savior" - you used that word.
Maybe you think we have better talent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: meaningless...
Mar 25, 2015, 4:46 PM
|
|
"it doesnt fit my sad pathetic agenda so it is meaningless."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
no... what grade thney were recruited at is meaningless
Mar 25, 2015, 5:32 PM
|
|
if they didn't stick around and play. You can talk all you want to about what OP left, but it didn't do us any good if they pre-judged Brownell and vacated before playing.
What really steams me is that a-holes like you call themselves "Clemson fans" all the while beatching and moaning about Rod Hall. Well at Rod stayed and played - unlike every one else in his class - Sullivan, Coleman, et al.
You jerks think you're big stuff getting on a board and denigrating someone - whether it be Brownell, Leggett, TDP before them, Rod Hall, etc. Milt Jennings was anothre favorite target.
You'll find if you read through all my posts that they have a singular theme - keyboard jockeys make poor "fans" and even poorer "coaches". There's a fair amount of them on here, and guys like you show yourselves for what you are, running around trying to "support" your poor little sisters.
Either Shut up, or learn to say something nice about Clemson, its coaches, or its players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Re: meaningless...
Mar 25, 2015, 7:44 PM
[ in reply to meaningless... ] |
|
Meaningless?
You attempted to make a point that OP left the cupboard empty which I proved to be wrong.
You then tried to say that Brownells last 2 classes are his best which is also just not true.
You do realize that in the past 2 classes 2/5 have transferred and only one played meaningful full time minutes this year? Right?
Also please link to where I used the word "savior"....didn't happen. you said and I quote " the loss of Brice Johnson meant more than anyone couold ever know". Why harp on someone who never came to campus?
It's ok though. Someone comes at you with the facts and you have no way to dispute them so you call them meaningless....
You have shown your hand epi and it doesn't look good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16121]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26428
Joined: 11/18/03
|
It's been over 2 hours, should you be responding?***
Mar 25, 2015, 7:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
I don't' expect you to understand the difference at this point....
Mar 25, 2015, 7:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16121]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26428
Joined: 11/18/03
|
If I'm the butthrt one, why did you start a new thread?***
Mar 25, 2015, 7:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Re: If I'm the butthrt one, why did you start a new thread?***
Mar 25, 2015, 8:05 PM
|
|
So if I start a thread I'm butthurt? How exactly does that work?
the coot logic is strong in this one...
Also, you follow me to another thread where we'd had exactly ZERO interaction and I'm the butthurt one? Strong logic bruh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12314
Joined: 3/28/06
|
Re: I think you mistake what BB thinks of his program, and
Mar 24, 2015, 4:22 PM
[ in reply to I think you mistake what BB thinks of his program, and ] |
|
I've always been quick to say that BB is a great coach but a mediocre recruiter. I stand by that.
And I admit in the post that the Clemson bball product will not be as easy to promote as the football one.
But I think there's a lot you can sell--the brand, the school, the education, the ACC (pumping conference affiliation did wonders for the Coots' fb team (RIP 2009-2013)), the fans (occasionally), we have two guys in the NBA right now, and eventually the facilities.
Basketball is always going to play second fiddle at Clemson and recruiting great players is always going to be rare here. But we should be able to get good ones. And good shooters.
We've heard Dabo talk many times about how much of a hail mary it was getting CJ Spiller to visit campus and how much of a shock it was when he signed with lowly Clemson in '06. That's the kind of stuff it takes to build a program.
I will say again, BB is a great Xs and Os guy (go back and read my post history of defending him on here) and he does a great job with what he has but you gotta recruit these days in basketball to take the next step.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
stop writing what you wish, and write what is fact based -
Mar 24, 2015, 5:33 PM
|
|
and a couple of regular season titles plus -0- ACC Tournament titles says you're wrong.
Not every coach who ever coached at Clemson has been a moron - yet their cumulative record speaks for itself.
Are there sell-able points - yes. Should we denigrate, castigate, or terminate a coach because he doesn't sell those points as well as we wished he would?
Absolutely not.
Again - for those not listening - not every coach who ever coached at Clemson was a moron. Yet those that denigrate Brownell would lead you to believe that in fact all those coaches were in fact dumb and dumberer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
who calls all these coaches morons, except for you?
Mar 24, 2015, 8:06 PM
|
|
I've seen no one doing that except you.
If someone posts something about being concerned with basketball recruiting... which, by the way, IS A FACT (since you are so fact based)... you call them out for bashing.
it's sad, really
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
are you drunk when you post this poetic
Mar 24, 2015, 8:04 PM
[ in reply to I think you mistake what BB thinks of his program, and ] |
|
########?
I've been as big a fan of BB as there is, and I know he is a very good basketball coach... but you can in no way, no shape, no how compare the job Dabo does recruiting with Brownell.
What does Dabo and FSU have to do with anything? Dabo outrecruits 98% of the country. Are you drunk?
BB is as good of an in game and preparation coach as I have seen... but the fact remains we're going into year 6 and we're still waiting for recruiting to get turned around. What does he sell? An NCAAT appearance 5 years ago? An NIT run last year?
Who does that fall on?
Just when I think stoopid had reached it's limit... you make a post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
I know you hate me York, but don't let it get in the
Mar 25, 2015, 2:58 PM
|
|
way of actually using your brain.
I was simply pointing out that "Brand" means more in recruiting than virtually anything else; which quite frankly is why you hear the "SEC" chant so much - they're just building "brand" with the kids.
FSU outrecruits Dabo every year - and no, I wouldn't hold Dabo to that as it's simply "Brand" that does it for the Noles. Heck, they could probably hire Little Orphan Annie to coach and they'd still outrecruit us.
So in looking at Brownell, one has to determine "what of our recruiting problems are Clemson" and "what of our recruiting problems are Brownell and the staff".
I think you hate mongers on here - the ones who went to fire a coach every time we lose a game - sadly mistake how much of our "talent gap" in Basketball is Brownell because you don't want to admit the issues that Clemson has historically. Grow up - look at realities, not what BS you want blown up your ####.
Then I simply point out that no coach in Clemson's history has lived up the expectations of the hatemongers on here as a way of saying that it can't be that all the coaches at Clemson were idiots. No - there were several good ones, some of which we ran off - but none of them -
I REPEAT, NONE of them
delivered the results you apparently want Brownell to provide.
People need to realize that the problem for basketball at Clemson isn't all the coach. They also need to realize that some of the problem IS the uninitiated on here who simply don't have the clarity to know either realistic basketball expectations or good basketball for that matter.
By the way, that group clearly includes you and anyone else who suggested this past year's team was possible NCAA material. They never were regardless the record; yet you said it - now live with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2457]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4246
Joined: 3/12/08
|
Re: I think you mistake what BB thinks of his program, and
Mar 24, 2015, 8:24 PM
[ in reply to I think you mistake what BB thinks of his program, and ] |
|
If Clemson is at a natural disadvantage in basketball, then our brand needs to be different. We had that in OP. Everyone knew were going to get out there and run. A good system also makes up for talent disadvantages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43992]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32924
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Making up for talent deficiencies is precisely why Brownell
Mar 24, 2015, 9:19 PM
|
|
runs a "boring" offense and stresses defense. We have been competitive against teams that are much more talented than we are, and have won some of them, because of BB's system.
It might not be as exciting as Purnell's system in your opinion, but once he gets another key piece or two, you will see that it allows us to be more successful when we are in the NCAA Tournament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2457]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4246
Joined: 3/12/08
|
Re: Making up for talent deficiencies is precisely why Brownell
Mar 24, 2015, 9:29 PM
|
|
His system also keeps bad teams close with us.
Slowing down the game puts more pressure on the offense to convert. We are offensively challenged, obviously. If you cannot score, then you need to move quickly in transition to get quick layups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
good point is
Mar 24, 2015, 9:29 PM
|
|
good
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
"his system" - the Grand Pooba of fallacies about
Mar 25, 2015, 3:21 PM
[ in reply to Re: Making up for talent deficiencies is precisely why Brownell ] |
|
Clemson basketball as perpetrated and perpetuated by TNET-PHallacs.
Do tell: How exactly different is Brownell's "system" from the system that Rick Barnes used so well at Clemson?
Let's see they were both based in tough man-to-man defense, with a motion offense. Neither eschewed the fast break, but neither employed it as their main weapon either. Both relied on guards who could guard over guards who could shoot. Brownell has more of a high-post look with his big man than Barnes did, but that mnay be because with the exception of the Bookers he hasn't consistently had really good low-post scorers. Both made do with 3* types coming into the program with upside that could be coached in. Barnes though had the benefit of never losing his best player early to the NBA.
You people crack me up with the sheat you repeat from other posters, as if the very act of repeating it somehow adds some credence.
Here's a fact: the more you beatch on this board, the more it reflects on you and your deficiencies, not those of Brownell or the program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
you're wrong ...
Mar 25, 2015, 3:24 PM
|
|
we don't run a true motion.. You want to see a true motion team? Look at Gonzaga.
We run patterns and sets. We DO NOT run a motion.
Brownell doesn't rely on the high post. He did that a little with Grant his first year, and some with Milt... but he likes to ball screen high and roll to the front of the rim. We roll and replace almost every possession, creating a pin inside for Nnoko, and, in theory, putting the defense in a bind when we reverse the ball.
you don't know what you are talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
thank you - whatever***
Mar 25, 2015, 3:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
so you got nothing... why don't you tell me what a true
Mar 25, 2015, 3:40 PM
|
|
"motion" looks like? I mean.. since we run it and all.
Let's debate that.... I'll wait while you google it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
listen to me sad man, I don't care about your little games
Mar 25, 2015, 4:39 PM
|
|
on here. And I also don';t care that you're miffed because I don';t think highly of you or your opinion. Again - whatever.
Your ego means nothing to me; never will.
So as to the question: True enough, Brownell doesn't run a "motion" in the sense of an virtually unstructured passing game like Dean Smith, where the "set" is totally defined as literally where-ever free space presents itself.
Brownell's offense is more of the off-ball picks that Bobby Knight was famous for, especially in years where he had shooters like Steve Alford.
However, my only point was - and like always, you attempt to misnomer it - Brownell's offense, like Barnes' generally, was not the highly structured feed it to the middle (either high- or low- post) offense like the NBA is (in)famous for. Brownell has also not generally relied on high post pick-and-roll type schemes - though there were times last year when Hall and Nnoko played this game to some real success. Quite frankly I wondered why we didn't do more of it this year since we had very good games - against Duke in the ACC Tourney - where this appeared to be our prime "set".
So, sure we run plays - very few teams do not - however the lack of sets is not what makes a "motion" offense, nor does the inclusion of sets preclude "motion".
"Motion" in its truest sense was originally derived as "off ball movement" designed to free up space to either drive to or to fill with a player to receive a pass. If you don't think Brownell does that, can't help you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: listen to me sad man, I don't care about your little games
Mar 25, 2015, 4:41 PM
|
|
Him proving that you are full of #### is not playing games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
wondered when Dr. Kiss butt would show up...
Mar 25, 2015, 5:25 PM
|
|
now where's that little dsp?
go bye-bye now 117, thi sdiscussion is way above your grade...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: wondered when Dr. Kiss butt would show up...
Mar 25, 2015, 5:45 PM
|
|
seems like you are the one out of place due to your knowledge or lack thereof of basketball.
You were shown above you know jack about the game.
Maybe go play at the kids table. I hear tic tac toe is a simple game. Maybe it will better suite someone of your intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
i'll help you
Mar 25, 2015, 8:59 PM
[ in reply to listen to me sad man, I don't care about your little games ] |
|
a true motion offense is predicated on your guys being able to read and react to the ball. True motion teams run very few sets. They create shots b/c they know how to read and react.
If the drive is above me, I read the defender and either fill behind or fall to the corner. If baseline drive is opposite, I fill my corner. If dribble is at me, I jab and back cut. When I pass, I cut hard to the rim and someone fills. The reads are endless. I can cut or screen away. If there's a ball screen and roll opposite me, I fill the top, etc, etc, etc.... Guys have to have a good basketball IQ to run a true motion offense.
Yes, we do some of that. However, we run a set almost every time down in order to get us into our "motion". We don't run a secondary break either, to get into our motion. We typically run something that gives us an inside and outside option, then we go play off of that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a set guy. There's nothing like executing a quick hitter for an easy basket. However, if you don't get it, you have to be able to get into your motion.... and we have a hard time doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
and i'll just add... regarding Knight's motion offense...
Mar 25, 2015, 9:13 PM
[ in reply to listen to me sad man, I don't care about your little games ] |
|
Bobby Knight's base motion was screen away, down screen... every time. It was a continuous motion where all 5 guys played all 5 spots.
I pass to the wing, I screen away. If I'm on the block, and the pass is on my side, I screen away on a post to post screen.
I pass back to the top, both wings down screen.
Continuous... and they played off that.
i'm here to help
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21815]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15701
Joined: 10/23/12
|
I guess epi took his ball and went home....***
Mar 27, 2015, 1:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3203]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2134
Joined: 1/22/04
|
bring shoeless out of retirement to do hype videos
Mar 24, 2015, 3:44 PM
|
|
That guy was amazing and could make some crappy Clemson teams look like National Championship teams with his film skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 52
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
