Hot Stove: UNC Basketball

  • Thread starter Thread starter UNCMSinLS
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 28K
  • UNC Sports 
Heelsandeers said:
Yeah…

Pretty good job of solidifying the front court but the staff’s reluctance to bringing in on ball guards (after losing 3) makes no sense
Click to expand...
Isn't that now the GM's responsibility? How do you define or divine reluctance anyway? Doesn't there have to be some interest on both sides?
 
TarSpiel said:
I'm not sure "reluctance" is the right word...we've been after a few.
Click to expand...

A few before they signed Evans

Lost track but there are at least 2-3 scholarships remaining and we’re hearing they’re done

Unless the plan is to play Dixon idk why they aren’t still looking at guys like Lewis or others
 
finesse said:
Isn't that now the GM's responsibility? How do you define or divine reluctance anyway? Doesn't there have to be some interest on both sides?
Click to expand...

Yes it is

By bringing in 1 guard after losing 3 and saying you’re done

No idea if Lewis would come but the indication has been the backcourt is finished
 
Heelsandeers said:
A few before they signed Evans

Lost track but there are at least 2-3 scholarships remaining and we’re hearing they’re done

Unless the plan is to play Dixon idk why they aren’t still looking at guys like Lewis or others
Click to expand...

Dunno, but I agree with you that signing another guard seems like it would be a good idea

Though they do have the incoming freshmen too, so to them it probably looks like losing 3, bringing 3 in.
 
Last edited:
rodoheel said:
Wishful thinking IMO.

ETA: in any event, when/how does Hubert's offense create elbow jumpers for forwards?
Click to expand...
Can't answer that question. But word on the street is Oates totally disallowed anything but 3's and layups. Seems to me as if HD is ok with any good shot no matter where it is on the floor. Word is Jarin, when not jacking threes, would try to get to the rim where he shot over 60%... but was not "allowed" to shoot a mid-range jumper at all. Apparently he had that in his game in HS. That's the word I heard.
But at the end of the day, UNC needed to get bigger, longer... Jarin fits that bill and is an upgrade from JWash on defense and perhaps just as good on offense. It's an upgrade in my book.
 
Centerpiece said:
Can't answer that question. But word on the street is Oates totally disallowed anything but 3's and layups. Seems to me as if HD is ok with any good shot no matter where it is on the floor. Word is Jarin, when not jacking threes, would try to get to the rim where he shot over 60%... but was not "allowed" to shoot a mid-range jumper at all. Apparently he had that in his game in HS. That's the word I heard.
But at the end of the day, UNC needed to get bigger, longer... Jarin fits that bill and is an upgrade from JWash on defense and perhaps just as good on offense. It's an upgrade in my book.
Click to expand...
I don't really care about whether Oats "disallowed" anything other than threes and layups (though certainly more analytically-minded modern coaches focus on those shot attempts over midrange). I'm just saying that expecting that a guy who hasn't shown it before - and has been a poor FT shooter, which is usually the best gauge of overall shooting touch/ability - is secretly an expert midrange dynamo who can score efficiently from the part of the court where almost all players is least efficient, is not a good bet to make. I would expect that here, his shot attempts will similarly be mostly threes and layups - because those are the shot attempts that most role players take most frequently anyway - and if he shoots a lot of midrange jumpers that is highly likely to make our offense less efficient, not more.

I don't disagree about it being a good thing to add a forward with some length and defensive versatility. We needed another guy like that and I'm perfectly happy for it to be Stevenson instead of Catchings. I just don't think it makes much sense to fantasize about Stevenson's hypothetical midrange game.
 
rodoheel said:
I don't disagree about it being a good thing to add a forward with some length and defensive versatility. We needed another guy like that and I'm perfectly happy for it to be Stevenson instead of Catchings. I just don't think it makes much sense to fantasize about Stevenson's hypothetical midrange game.
Click to expand...
While I agree that there's little reason to project greatness, it's also true that having a big man who can flash to the elbow or FT line and knock down a jumper is a great asset for beating a zone. Which is something we do not consistently do, not every year.
 
superrific said:
While I agree that there's little reason to project greatness, it's also true that having a big man who can flash to the elbow or FT line and knock down a jumper is a great asset for beating a zone. Which is something we do not consistently do, not every year.
Click to expand...
Sure it is, but (1) facing zone defense is fairly rare (my guess would be we saw a halfcourt zone on fewer than 20% of possessions this year, maybe even closer to 10% or so), and (2) there's little reason to believe a guy with a poor-to-mediocre career FT % and 3pt% is gonna be the guy who can contribute that.
 
rodoheel said:
Sure it is, but (1) facing zone defense is fairly rare (my guess would be we saw a halfcourt zone on fewer than 20% of possessions this year, maybe even closer to 10% or so), and (2) there's little reason to believe a guy with a poor-to-mediocre career FT % and 3pt% is gonna be the guy who can contribute that.
Click to expand...
1. Zone defense was more common against us when we had guys who could score inside.
2. I'm not offering a prediction about his ability. I'm just saying that if he's a good mid-range shooter (or even decent), that could be an asset even though midrange shots are generally not good.
 
donbosco said:
I've heard some rumble about an "Israeli Point Guard," or such.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear that we are no longer pursuing any starting-caliber guards. We have our projected starters at the guard spots and they're almost certainly not getting recruited over. I think it would make sense to add a veteran backup guard if the right situation presents itself, but the PT (and probably money) for a top-level guard just aren't there at the moment.
 
superrific said:
1. Zone defense was more common against us when we had guys who could score inside.
2. I'm not offering a prediction about his ability. I'm just saying that if he's a good mid-range shooter (or even decent), that could be an asset even though midrange shots are generally not good.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone would disagree that being a good mid-range shooter is an asset. But it's an increasingly rare skill set (because midrange shots are so inefficient overall, few guys are encouraged to take them) and definitely not one there's any reason to think Stevenson has.

I do happen to think that Drake Powell is an example of a guy who shows flashes of being a good midrange shooter. It helps that he can elevate for a jump shot higher than just about anyone I've seen. He wasn't particularly effective in that range last year but if he sticks around (or if not, in the NBA) it's something I hope he will continue to develop.
 
rodoheel said:
It's pretty clear that we are no longer pursuing any starting-caliber guards. We have our projected starters at the guard spots and they're almost certainly not getting recruited over. I think it would make sense to add a veteran backup guard if the right situation presents itself, but the PT (and probably money) for a top-level guard just aren't there at the moment.
Click to expand...
Why do you say it’s pretty clear?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top