Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Men’s Basketball' started by Full Flask, Feb 16, 2010.
Post deleted by Full Flask
he hasn't compromised anything. he's been breaking those youngsters in. barnes coaches to prepare for the tourney.
If Coach knight had this talented team he would be scoring 100 + points per game. If Hamilton and Brown could not play as a team they would not play until they did.Simple but we also would not be playing 10-11 palyers per game. 7-8 team players that would run his motion offense , I doubt if most teams were able to defend the starting five. The team would know how and when to pass, what a good shot and everyone would know their roles and what was expected of them. They would pressure the ball and trap in the half court, solid defense.
Coach Knight knows how the game is played not just defense. The dance would be a waltz for this team with Coach Knight.
I like Barnes maybe not for this team.
That's a stretch. You remove Brown and Hamilton and reduce the team to a 7-8 man rotation, then you have James and Bradley as the only outside scoring threats, no one who will really stretch the defense, no size inside after Pittman, and no depth to allow for high pressure defense on every possession.
Nobody gets 100+ a night from that.
Without meaning to be too critical of Barnes, who I am behind 100%, it makes me respect even more Abe Lemons as a coach.
I remember a quote by Weltlich in an interview in The Alcalde shortly after he became Texas' coach. Something to the effect (which I took as a slap at Lemons): "Some coaches just get the best players they can and make a team around them. We will find players that fit our style and coach them to our standards."
Or something like that.
By contrast, Lemons went out and got the best he could and modified HIS approach to team style with the players he had.
His NIT championship team of Krivacs, Moore, Baxter, Branyon, and Goodner was small even by standards of the day, but Goodner could mix it up inside as could "Fat" Baxter, kind of like Barkley.
But it was the outside shooting and guard play of Krivacs and Moore who lit up the scoreboard.
Losing them ultimately had Lemons getting some faster, quicker guys and Lemons went to a bit of run and gun.
Then he got LaSalle Thompson and Mike Wacker and went to a big inside game (until, I HATE to even type these words, the INJURY of Wack's knee at BU).
IIRC, when these guys left, he again got some REAL quick guards and went back to a small, running game.
Just my 2 cents, but to me, that's the sign of a good coach, modifying HIS preferred approach to a necessary approach given what you have in talent at the time.
You don't recall correctly. After Wacker got hurt, Lemons found no combination to keep Texas from losing nearly every game left on the schedule, winning just one more conference game and going something like 2-11 overall to end the year. Then he was fired. Getting real quick guards must have been his M.O. somewhere else, if that is what you are referring to.
For all of the rosy memories of Lemons, his teams had problems on and off the court, finishing 6th and 7th in conference his last two years, graduating only one Lemons recruit during his entire stay in Austin, and having such embarrassing incidents as a bicycle theft hit the program.
Yeah, got my sequence incorrect.
My recollection of point guards is not.
Don't have a name or two offhand, but his change of style from short and quick to big and tall inside is not, and that's the point of my post, whether I got the sequence wrong.
Don't recall hearing about any bicycle theft scandal.
And while graduation rates are important to university status, I'm missing the relationship to changing team styles from small and quick to big and inside.
Pointing out Lemon's deficiencies outside of the topic of adapting coaching styles doesn't help to prove or disprove anything.
I think Bob Knight is/was a jerk, including throwing a chair across the court and allegedly tossing a lamp at a wall infront of his secretary.
Doesn't make him less of a great basketball mind.
SMH, I agree with most of the things you write but I can't agree that Knight would be busting the clock with this bunch. Not only would he have benched Hamilton, he never would have recruited him. He probably wouldn't have recruited Brown either, although I suppose he has a little Isiah Thomas in him.
Knight would have demanded at least as much defensively as Barnes. If anything, he stuck more to his principles than any coach I've ever seen. You see it in his color work, which I'm sorry to say is not as good as I'd hoped. He constantly says teams shoot too early in the clock, they don't work the ball enough. That's not the offensive philosophy of a 100-point team.
Knight might have gotten more out of this team because he's possibly the best basketball tactician ever. But he wouldn't take one- or two-year players, and be in the position to have this many freshmen playing key roles.
I am pretty sure that Barnes knew what he was getting into with this team, as it has become clear in his recent interviews that not even he thought it would take this long to integrate those guys.
Love the brashness. That said, would like to see him temper that with better ball control, better decisions with the ball, better shot-selection, and better defense. Other than that, love the brashness.
The freshmen all too often appear to forget that the other team has star athletes also. Pittman's disappearance is the most troubling thing about the last stretch.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Knight always got the most out of his less talented players, if not them he would MMA choke them out.
Ok 100+ points might have been a stretch but his motion offense would score more points with our Texas players , Pittman would be a weapon. Knight would not start or even play Dog/Mason together,said as much the other night
. Yes we would play defense also.
Knight knows his basketball.
Of course Knight is a better offensive coach than Barnes.
He wouldn't be able to stand this team, at least not with the freshmen playing like they were playing as recently as last week.
It's more about a lack of role players than it is the youth.
Both the 2010 and 2003 teams have depth. The 2003 team had guys who could distribute the ball, guys who could bang their bodies for rebounds, guys who could hit the three with some regularity, and guys who made their teammates better by running a disciplined game.
The 2010 team has Damion James, who can do one of the four aforementioned things well, and streaky guys who have no clue what their roles are. If we had an offensive threat at PG, it might solve some of the problems. Not all, though.
I agree with the original premise of the post, but I think it's more on the execution of the team and less on Barnes.
Firsf off, using Bobby Knight and his "motion offense" is a piss poor analogy? Why? Because it's his motion offense that was hampering his recruiting efforts. Knight wouldn't have this kind of talent in this day and age because these kids won't play in a motion offense that requires multiple passes and jump shooting skills.
Seth Davis had a good point today, the team is athletically gifted (but perhaps not skilled--there's a difference):
"I agree with the original premise of the post, but I think it's more on the execution of the team and less on Barnes."
Who is in charge, who assigns the roles, who sets the game plan, who puts the subs into the game, who decides what the starting lineup is, who puts players into the dog house, who says who plays or sits on the bench for most of the season,who is the person where the buck stops ?
What this program needs is a very good offensive minded assistant coach to help Barnes out. I've always have like Barnes except I've never understood his offensive philosophy.
Don't look now, but UT leads the Big 12 in scoring in conference games.
And that's in spite of having by far the worst free throw shooting in the conference.