Hot Stove: UNC Basketball

  • Thread starter Thread starter UNCMSinLS
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 37K
  • UNC Sports 
UNCatTech said:
Ok, someone over there has claimed to have played for UNC, i believe in a walk on role, but I'm pretty sure some made that claim.

But my memory isn't great, so there's a possibility I'm just mixing thing up.
Click to expand...
I had a dream once that I was a walk on at UNC, and a lot of the players got sick the night before playing dook. I had to be the PG off the bench. The starting PG fouled out with a minute left to play, and I had to go in. Then of course I hit the shot at the buzzer to beat dook by 1.
 
Not on IC and know nothing at all but I assumed it was UNC that chose not to retain Cadeau

Tbh, I hope that is the case and probably the better case scenario overall
 
SnoopRob said:
I'd be curious to hear more about why you think they'd work well together.

My take is that they are far too similar to play well together, especially since neither is anything like a natural PG and neither is big enough to play the 3.

How do you see them working well together, what positions do you think they each play, and how do you see the rest of the team working around them?
Click to expand...

Let me see if I can express this correctly. Bear with me, give me some latitude for a bit...

In the traditional format, you had a point guard, two wings, two post players. The functions of the PG was ball handling and running the offense. The wings were usually your scorers...these could either be shooters from the outside (something that gained more value with a three point line) and guys adept at slashing to the basket...that was the "original" separation between a shooting guard and a small forward. Then you had two post players who played inside mostly (post offense, elbow offense, screens, rebounds).

"Modern" basketball has gone towards offensive sets that feature four perimeter guys and one inside guy, or can even start from a five out alignment (though I think you still have a big guy who's job is to mostly set screens). With 4-1 sets, some coaches tend to divide the 4 perimeter spots into 2 guards and 2 forwards (more on that later). With that thinking you'd want the 2 guards to provide ball handling, playmaking and shooting, and for the 2 forwards to provide shooting and slashing.

There is currently a position less trend that is more prevalent in some European basketball (of course) that some NBA teams and college teams have emulated. Basically the concept is that in a basketball game there is a series of actions that needs to be done (bringinging the ball up, passing, scoring outside, scoring inside)...and that you should maximize your player's ability rather than define their roles based on height. That's how you end up with big men being the perimeter shooters or passers (also some guards as very adept post up players). The message is don't worry so much about positions as about maximizing talent and making sure you have enough of each role (a team with 5 pass only guys doesn't work).

So coming back to the RJ/Caleb backcourt. In the 4-1 sets UNC was running that year (which was a more "modern" look than Roy's 3-2 system), I don't think you need to have a traditional PG per se for it to be effective. In fact, that offense is more dangerous when you can have two guys who can handle the ball, attack the basket and shoot. So having two quasi combo guards is probably a good fit for that sort of offense...opens all sorts of options in early offense in how you can push the ball. The one possible downside? Personally, you still need a leadership on the court and having one designated PG makes it easier (rather than two guys vying for the wheel). Easier with a veteran team, more challenging with an inexperienced one.

Sorry for the diatribe...I am ramping up in my basketball season down here.
 
UNCatTech said:
Ok, someone over there has claimed to have played for UNC, i believe in a walk on role, but I'm pretty sure some made that claim.

But my memory isn't great, so there's a possibility I'm just mixing thing up.
Click to expand...
Are you thinking of burls? If so, that’s Michael Norwood who played under Dean Smith as a walk-on during the 1986 and 1987 seasons. Dewey Burke has posted as well, but not much as far as I know.
 
Centerpiece said:
So you’re sure we won’t have NIL money this go around to throw around? I’ve heard the opposite.
Click to expand...
No, not that at all. I think we'll be more aggressive with NIL $ this go-round. I just wonder how much it'll matter. I mean, imagine you're this kid's agent. For the same/similar money, who would you feel good about sending your client to play for right now - Hubert or Mark Pope/Jon Scheyer.
 
UNCRx85 said:
No, not that at all. I think we'll be more aggressive with NIL $ this go-round. I just wonder how much it'll matter. I mean, imagine you're this kid's agent. For the same/similar money, who would you feel good about sending your client to play for right now - Hubert or Mark Pope/Jon Scheyer.
Click to expand...
That’s a no-brainer, and Hubert loses. Again.
 
stankeylegjones said:
I am assuming he’s an insider, perhaps that’s a bad assumption. What about cjones? I am also assuming he’s connected with the program.
Click to expand...
The one thing that makes me think cjones is an insider to at least some extent is that a few years ago TarheelPatriot (remember him?) kept hounding him, and Ben admonished Tarheel Patriot for acting in a way that could drive off insiders. He seemed to vouch for cjones’s insider status.
 
UNCRx85 said:
No, not that at all. I think we'll be more aggressive with NIL $ this go-round. I just wonder how much it'll matter. I mean, imagine you're this kid's agent. For the same/similar money, who would you feel good about sending your client to play for right now - Hubert or Mark Pope/Jon Scheyer.
Click to expand...
All Scheyer and Pope have had to do is keep things on the rails. Those rails were greased long before those two got there, so let’s not act like they’ve so greatly distinguished themselves from HD, who didn’t have the same funding pipelines in place when he took over.

Last I checked, only one of the three has been to a national title game or even a Final Four. Especially given the respective coffers they’ve all worked with.
 
Icky Mettle said:
The one thing that makes me think cjones is an insider to at least some extent is that a few years ago TarheelPatriot (remember him?) kept hounding him, and Ben admonished Tarheel Patriot for acting in a way that could drive off insiders. He seemed to vouch for cjones’s insider status.
Click to expand...
cones definitely has access to sources at UNC and other places.

But ike the story of feeling the elephant, its one particular view and not always the absolute truth.
 
duluoz said:
All Scheyer and Pope have had to do is keep things on the rails. Those rails were greased long before those two got there, so let’s not act like they’ve so greatly distinguished themselves from HD, who didn’t have the same funding pipelines in place when he took over.

Last I checked, only one of the three has been to a national title game or even a Final Four. Especially given the respective coffers they’ve all worked with.
Click to expand...
Do you think that’s the agents’ logic? I don’t.
 
Geisterfahrer said:
Do you think that’s the agents’ logic? I don’t.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily but just thought it called for some broader context that seems to be getting lost.

The bottom line I can mostly agree with. They are ahead of HD in the way the system needs to be worked, largely because they inherited a more modernized framework. But they are not ahead in achievement as coaches.
 
duluoz said:
All Scheyer and Pope have had to do is keep things on the rails. Those rails were greased long before those two got there, so let’s not act like they’ve so greatly distinguished themselves from HD, who didn’t have the same funding pipelines in place when he took over.

Last I checked, only one of the three has been to a national title game or even a Final Four. Especially given the respective coffers they’ve all worked with.
Click to expand...
Not saying you're wrong at all, but perception = reality. Nobody cares that Hubert went to the title game 3 years ago. And by "nobody", I mean players, agents, etc. They do care that he doesn't produce 1st rounders. They do care that the top-15 level talent that has come here struggled.

To his credit, Hubert probably gets similar results to Scheyer if he coached the same players. Same with Pope. But since the one-and-done era began, we've never been seen as a OAD-friendly. Or even NBA-friendly. We frankly do not produce NBA players anymore. And that needs to change ASAP. These kids and their handlers have to feel confident in your ability to further their careers, not impede them.

Not that I know anything about anything, but I posted on IC months ago that for him to have any sort of long-term potential, Hubert had to coach Ian and Drake into 1st rounders this year and then attend the draft with them. Smiles, handshakes, photo ops and all that. The full Calipari.

They were his best chance to change the narrative.
 
Last edited:
bwall is a former player, but I've never seen an indication of what type of player (walk-on, bench, significant role player, starter...I assume varsity but I've never seen it specifically said that he wasn't JV).

He seems to very much want to keep his real life identity a secret, which I get, so I don't think he reveals much about himself.

I agree with others that his connections largely seem to be from the player/former player side, but he may very well have connections to some staff, as well. And it seems he has some kind of professional connections, which (IMHO) also seem to be player-focused.
 
CRHeel94 said:
Let me see if I can express this correctly. Bear with me, give me some latitude for a bit...

In the traditional format, you had a point guard, two wings, two post players. The functions of the PG was ball handling and running the offense. The wings were usually your scorers...these could either be shooters from the outside (something that gained more value with a three point line) and guys adept at slashing to the basket...that was the "original" separation between a shooting guard and a small forward. Then you had two post players who played inside mostly (post offense, elbow offense, screens, rebounds).

"Modern" basketball has gone towards offensive sets that feature four perimeter guys and one inside guy, or can even start from a five out alignment (though I think you still have a big guy who's job is to mostly set screens). With 4-1 sets, some coaches tend to divide the 4 perimeter spots into 2 guards and 2 forwards (more on that later). With that thinking you'd want the 2 guards to provide ball handling, playmaking and shooting, and for the 2 forwards to provide shooting and slashing.

There is currently a position less trend that is more prevalent in some European basketball (of course) that some NBA teams and college teams have emulated. Basically the concept is that in a basketball game there is a series of actions that needs to be done (bringinging the ball up, passing, scoring outside, scoring inside)...and that you should maximize your player's ability rather than define their roles based on height. That's how you end up with big men being the perimeter shooters or passers (also some guards as very adept post up players). The message is don't worry so much about positions as about maximizing talent and making sure you have enough of each role (a team with 5 pass only guys doesn't work).

So coming back to the RJ/Caleb backcourt. In the 4-1 sets UNC was running that year (which was a more "modern" look than Roy's 3-2 system), I don't think you need to have a traditional PG per se for it to be effective. In fact, that offense is more dangerous when you can have two guys who can handle the ball, attack the basket and shoot. So having two quasi combo guards is probably a good fit for that sort of offense...opens all sorts of options in early offense in how you can push the ball. The one possible downside? Personally, you still need a leadership on the court and having one designated PG makes it easier (rather than two guys vying for the wheel). Easier with a veteran team, more challenging with an inexperienced one.

Sorry for the diatribe...I am ramping up in my basketball season down here.
Click to expand...
It's "Total Football" for basketball!

The problem with the RJ/Caleb backcourt wasn't so much that two combo guards can't co-exist. It's that those two combo guards couldn't co-exist. I don't know about the off-court stuff (which, if true at all, would definitely make co-existence more difficult), but even on-court, they are too duplicative, and also sophomore RJ was not a particular good shooter IIRC. And it's possible that he's really a 34% guy who had a great year last year.
 
They showed flashes that second year, particularly when Manek was in the starting lineup and gave them another scoring option. Neither of them shot the 2 ball particularly well...but Love was more deficient (38% from 2 compared to RJ at 46%). Think the chemistry thing was more evident that second year with the wight of expectations.

Think both of them were not reigned in enough in some of the bad shots they took and that led to some bad habits. Yes, they were both coached by Roy that first year...but both saw a great leap in minutes once HD was on the bench.
 
UNCRx85 said:
No, not that at all. I think we'll be more aggressive with NIL $ this go-round. I just wonder how much it'll matter. I mean, imagine you're this kid's agent. For the same/similar money, who would you feel good about sending your client to play for right now - Hubert or Mark Pope/Jon Scheyer.
Click to expand...
You answered my question: "So do we have a chance?" And your answer is "no".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top