Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
#firecbb
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 42
| visibility 544

#firecbb


Mar 14, 2016, 11:45 AM

day 5

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/00/81/16/28/1000_F_81162810_8TlZDomtVuVGlyqWL2I4HA7Wlqw7cr5a.jpg


I think you've got at least


Mar 14, 2016, 11:55 AM

350 more to go. At least.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

#wonthappen


Mar 14, 2016, 11:57 AM

I'm beginning to think @soccerkrzy is correct about him getting at least one more year.

We just gotta hope that JB stays.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You have to at least acknowledge the progress made.


Mar 14, 2016, 11:59 AM

This year we came a lot closer to not not making the NIT than we did last year.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


That's an argument I cannot argue against.


Mar 14, 2016, 12:01 PM

Point to you good sir.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Is there anyone besides disappointed fans


Mar 14, 2016, 12:03 PM [ in reply to #wonthappen ]

Who think Brownell's seat is even warm?

I don't think Brownell is even close to losing his job, unless he has a bad year next year. (By bad, I mean 6-12 in the ACC kind of bad.)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I mean, he probably got a few ACC COY votes.***


Mar 14, 2016, 12:05 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm not saying he's a terrible coach but there are certain


Mar 14, 2016, 12:25 PM

aspects that need to be changed before next year.

1-If we have an 18-point lead with 8:26 to play, we should not dribble the ball out top and then jack up an ill-advised 3 because the shot clock is about to expire. I understand wanting to slow the game down some but you've still got to try and score.

2-If a guy is playing well off the bench in the first half, let him play in the second half, not just a few seconds but some significant minutes. When we lost to GT at GT and blew that 13-point lead, Roper scored 0 and Hudson played well in the first half but he didn't give him significant minutes later in the game.

3-Teach guys how to play without committing stupid fouls! Nnoko (gone) and Djitte are the kings of stupid fouls.

4-Show some emotion. Sometimes getting a tech is not a bad thing, it can be used as a motivator, see John Calpari against CSU in Cootlumbia this past season.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

But, but but, X amount of seasons with 10 ACC wins!***


Mar 14, 2016, 12:35 PM



badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-aero.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Making fun of it doesn't make it any less true


Mar 14, 2016, 12:37 PM

Plus, this ought to be a really good team next year if Blossomgame is back (which is what I said a couple years ago about KJ McDaniels...). Should still be pretty good without him.


Message was edited by: camcgee®


2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

True butt we should have won at least 12 ACC games this year


Mar 14, 2016, 12:39 PM

We shat the bed at GT, at VT and at NC State with GT being the biggest implosion of the season until that ACC Tourney game.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The other side of that coin is that maybe


Mar 14, 2016, 12:50 PM

they "shouldn't have" beaten Duke, Miami, and Louisville.

I don't think most people expected Clemson to get to 10-8 in the ACC before the season.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I didn't expect 10-8 but once we did beat Dook, Louisville


Mar 14, 2016, 1:01 PM

and Miami then we should have won 12 games. Maybe we just came back down to Earth and we were who we thought we were.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

18 games is a bigger sample size than 3.***


Mar 14, 2016, 1:06 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Or maybe we should have had at least 11.


Mar 14, 2016, 1:09 PM [ in reply to I didn't expect 10-8 but once we did beat Dook, Louisville ]

Say the team doesn't blow two huge leads to GT, we are in some sort of post season.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-aero.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yes, but the point is about expectations


Mar 14, 2016, 1:16 PM

Most thought we'd be 9-9 or worse. The real issue is losing those early season OOC games. Just beat Minnesota (8-23) and UMass (14-18), and you'd only have needed one more win- say, at GT or at VT- to get to 20 wins this year.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Much like what caused me to be ready to have Jack move on,


Mar 14, 2016, 1:23 PM

it was that early season junk that had me ready to run Brad. He should be doing what OP did and schedule a bunch of OOC wins. Maybe toss in some top 25 games, but it should be mostly wins and we should collect those wins easily.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-aero.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

And Alabama***


Mar 14, 2016, 1:31 PM [ in reply to Yes, but the point is about expectations ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

They actually had a decent year


Mar 14, 2016, 2:14 PM

Was just listing the teams we clearly should've beaten.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Once again


Mar 14, 2016, 3:39 PM

and Alabama

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

By year 6 we should have higher expections


Mar 14, 2016, 3:13 PM [ in reply to Yes, but the point is about expectations ]

regardless of if we were "supposed" to be good this year or not, 6 years in we should be in the NCAA tournament

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't know that we should ever say we


Mar 14, 2016, 3:31 PM

SHOULD be in the big dance, but should at least be a team that has something to ##### about if we don't make it.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-aero.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It should be the expectation every season


Mar 14, 2016, 3:35 PM

barring an unusual down year, every year we should start the season with the reasonable expectation of making the tournament. The past 2 seasons we started the season hoping to make the NIT.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It's sad when we start the season expecting an NIT berth and


Mar 14, 2016, 3:40 PM

we don't even get that.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

What in our history suggest this is reasonable?


Mar 14, 2016, 3:46 PM [ in reply to It should be the expectation every season ]

There is a bit of building that has to happen first.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-aero.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I think we've done enough building, I mean we're on


Mar 14, 2016, 3:48 PM

Littlejohn 3.0 now.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

ITS YEAR 6


Mar 14, 2016, 3:51 PM [ in reply to What in our history suggest this is reasonable? ]

2 full Classes have come and gone since Brownell Started. What rebuild takes 7 years.

Good coaches can get it done in 2 years.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Oh you are saying Brad should have us to that point by now.


Mar 14, 2016, 3:59 PM

Now, that is a different story. I am not sure that we have made any progress towards that goal.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-aero.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You forgot Syracuse and Louisville***


Mar 14, 2016, 3:07 PM [ in reply to The other side of that coin is that maybe ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Meant Syracuse and Pitt***


Mar 14, 2016, 3:07 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Or maybe traveling EVERY FARKING GAME finally


Mar 14, 2016, 5:40 PM [ in reply to True butt we should have won at least 12 ACC games this year ]

took its tool towards the end.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Shirley you can't be sirius.


Mar 15, 2016, 8:48 AM

They rode a bus for goodness sake. It ain't like they had to walk to Greenville for every game. If riding a bus to home games took it's "tool" (as you said) then we've got some really pansy players. Granted it wasn't ideal but that's not an excuse.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't think the 10 wins means nearly as much as it once


Mar 14, 2016, 1:08 PM [ in reply to Making fun of it doesn't make it any less true ]

did. If it did, then we'd have the NCAA tournament trips to match it.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-aero.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The problem is the program isn't going anywhere


Mar 14, 2016, 3:11 PM [ in reply to Is there anyone besides disappointed fans ]

He has been here for 6 years and his two best seasons were year 1 with Purnell's players (NCAA round of 64) and his 4th year (NIT semifinal)

Outside of that first season he hasn't even been to the NCAA tournament. His ACC record is atrocious at 50-54. After 6 years the wins should be trending up. Here are his conference wins, 9, 8, 5, 10, 8, 10. Complete stagnation. He can't recruit and relies on transfers to keep the program going.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It looks pretty good for next year


Mar 14, 2016, 3:28 PM

And it's not like Clemson is the only program that's ever relied on transfers.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If Clemson were winning "relying" on transfers is fine


Mar 14, 2016, 3:36 PM

The problem is they aren't. Transfers are like band-aids and unfortunately we don't have a cut, we have a gaping hole.

I don't think they look pretty good for next season at all.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

None of those guys have even played for us yet


Mar 14, 2016, 4:11 PM

The only transfer that's done anything substantial yet is Holmes. I guess I don't know how you can look at this team, see who's coming back and what we're adding, and not think we'll be pretty good.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I think the 6 years of history here outweigh the "potential"


Mar 14, 2016, 4:17 PM

and trouble is...we've still got (for now) the same coach and many of the same players.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Other than JB, nobody that played this year that can come


Mar 14, 2016, 4:23 PM

back next year makes me excited.

Holmes has potential, he has the potential to score a lot or not at all just like Roper did.

Legend and Djitte give me no hope, if Legend couldn't get on the floor over Nnoko or Djitte then I see no reason for excitement.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Not Grantham?


Mar 14, 2016, 5:51 PM

His stats this year were much better than JB's as a true sophomore. Him, JB, and Thomas would be a very talented, if small, front court.

Roper and Nnoko combined were only 23% of our scoring from last year. There's no reason why guys like Hudson, Mitchell, Reed, and Devoe can't replace that scoring.

As for replacing Nnoko, you can't on the one hand think replacing him is an issue and other hand talk about how awful the guys behind him must be if they couldn't get time. Djitte wasn't bad when he was in, and he's a guy whose skills have developed every year. Robertin is a seven-footer who was a total project this year, so it's not quite fair to judge him just yet. I don't see center as a strong point offensively, but we won't be awful there.

The one place we'll be pretty thin is at forward next year. I guess Grantham, Thomas, and Blossomgame would be the normal rotation. Would we have to rely on Shafer to get some minutes?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not Grantham?


Mar 15, 2016, 12:43 AM

Is 6-6 forward Spencer going to be on next year's team?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

But look at who's actually on the team next year


Mar 14, 2016, 5:35 PM [ in reply to I think the 6 years of history here outweigh the "potential" ]

It just sounds like you think the results are always going to be the same despite who's actually playing. Next year will be one of the most talented teams Clemson has had in a long time because of the transfers, plus (possibly) Blossomgame and Grantham. So should we just expect the same thing? I don't see why we should, because Brownell's teams have been pretty good when he's had good players. And the talent level has been getting better every year for the last three years with these guys.

As with the year after KJ left, there isn't that much that needs to be improved to make this into a tournament team. Our top scorer just needs to return (and I think we'd probably miss Blossomgame less because the overall talent level is higher). People act like we were awful when we probably came just a couple wins away from making it to the NCAAT. So, then, look at what we'll have next year and tell me that's a team that shouldn't win 3-4 more games next year.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

We were more than a couple wins away from the NCAAT


Mar 15, 2016, 8:45 AM

I'd say closer to 5 away.

The chickens were a lot closer than us and they were a couple away.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 42
| visibility 544
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic