UNC ONLY BASKETBALL 2024-25 SEASON

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 71K
  • UNC Sports 
stankeylegjones said:
Folks don't say that when there's one or two false starts, penalties, etc. They say that when there are several such penalties - and that is because coaches definitely do practice fundamentals like that, constantly, from Pop Warner up to the NFL. Going back to UNC, if the sluggish, unmotivated, unprepared, starts where infrequent then you wouldn't see people calling out HD/staff for that - just like no one called out Roy/staff's coaching for the way they came out against KU in 08. It's the repeated slow starts against decent (or better) teams, over years of HD/staff tenure, that points to their inability to get their teams ready to play.
Click to expand...
They practice not false-starting at the college level? Or some coaches, at least? Do you know that for sure? I know nothing about college football practice, so I'm not going to do a zen and start talking out of my ass. I'm just wondering if you're saying that with 100% confidence, 90%, etc.

I wouldn't think that would be a good use of practice time. In related news, I have won precisely 0 games as a football coach. On the other hand, I have also lost precisely 0 games, so my winning percentage would be decent for a UNC head coach (incoming!).

Anyway, let's go through some hypothetical scenarios as to how HD might be contributing to the bad start problem. None of them have to be accurate; I'm just wondering what people have in mind here. Is it the "locker room motivational speech?" Does that really have an impact? That much of an impact? HD can't give one, having heard them his whole life? Is it a game plan? That would seem to be an all-game long problem, not an opening minutes problem. What is it that HD might or might not be doing?
 
superrific said:
They practice not false-starting at the college level? Or some coaches, at least? Do you know that for sure? I know nothing about college football practice, so I'm not going to do a zen and start talking out of my ass. I'm just wondering if you're saying that with 100% confidence, 90%, etc.

I wouldn't think that would be a good use of practice time. In related news, I have won precisely 0 games as a football coach. On the other hand, I have also lost precisely 0 games, so my winning percentage would be decent for a UNC head coach (incoming!).

Anyway, let's go through some hypothetical scenarios as to how HD might be contributing to the bad start problem. None of them have to be accurate; I'm just wondering what people have in mind here. Is it the "locker room motivational speech?" Does that really have an impact? That much of an impact? HD can't give one, having heard them his whole life? Is it a game plan? That would seem to be an all-game long problem, not an opening minutes problem. What is it that HD might or might not be doing?
Click to expand...
Yes, they do practice it at all levels - some coaches emphasize it more than others, and some will put more emphasis (spend more periods in practice) on it leading into games against teams/QBs that are better at working hard-counts than others, along with highlighting it in film debriefs and next game film sessions. It doesn't really take away from time during a period to include it as part of the focus. For example, you are taught at a very young age to go off of the ball, not sound, on both sides, so reminding players of this during a positional-drill period, throughout the period, won't take away time - it's not like you sit everyone down and give them a passionate speech about it. When you bring everyone together for a controlled-scrimmage period, you'll have the scout team use hard counts, motion (body and limbs), and so on, to keep players continuing to move on the ball. The intention is to make it become "muscle memory" so that it doesn't take up any/much mental memory, allowing for players to focus on their assignments. If you're interested, you can watch tons of practice videos on youtube to see how it's done in practice - at all levels.

Everything is done off of the ball. From starts for positional drills, scrimmage plays, to sprints, to rope pulls, to other s&c work. Everything starts on the ball, both in-season and off-season.

Regarding HD/staff, I'm willing to bet it's a lot of those things, plus more, that contribute to it. The problem is that either they don't believe it's on them, or they don't know how to identity the issue(s) and correct them. (In general, this seems to be a universal issue with this staff - if/when they do finally figure it out, it's usually later than it should take a coach at an elite program to do.)
 
Last edited:
stankeylegjones said:
This team, as constructed, should have been in the top 25 throughout the year.
Click to expand...
No. Not without an established big and also without a team leader. Missed Bacot & Ingram. Failed to replace those all important spots. That was the deathknell for this season, and it happened 2 months before the first practice.
 
stankeylegjones said:
This is shocking: In 10 games against top-25 opponents, UNC led for 29:06 out of 405 minutes. That’s seven percent of game time.
Click to expand...
We couldn't play with the big boys all year. That stat proves it, but we all new that all along. I certainly wasn't shocked by that stat. I would have guessed more like 5%. I watched the games...
 
Centerpiece said:
No. Not without an established big and also without a team leader. Missed Bacot & Ingram. Failed to replace those all important spots. That was the deathknell for this season, and it happened 2 months before the first practice.
Click to expand...
Yes. With good coaching, this is a top 25 squad. Over the last month of the season, we were ~15th in efficiency metrics, there’s no reason to say that we couldn’t have done it for the majority of the year.

We weren’t going to be real NC contenders, but we certainly could have been within the top 25 for the year (especially after starting just inside the top 10).
 
Centerpiece said:
No. Not without an established big and also without a team leader. Missed Bacot & Ingram. Failed to replace those all important spots. That was the deathknell for this season, and it happened 2 months before the first practice.
Click to expand...
You've seen that this team can play with others in the top 25. You've seen that this team has talent. There is no reason why they weren't top 25 all year long. Not having a high-level big should've been the difference between a legit contender and a sweet 16 contender. Yet, here we are.
 
stankeylegjones said:
You've seen that this team can play with others in the top 25. You've seen that this team has talent. There is no reason why they weren't top 25 all year long. Not having a high-level big should've been the difference between a legit contender and a sweet 16 contender. Yet, here we are.
Click to expand...
I agree to disagree. We were missing a floor leader, a leader who started. And we were missing a legit big. Had to have them both to be top 25 ALL year long. Also Elliott's TO/A ratio wasn't where it needs to be for top 25 - all year long.

Of course we had talent. We had talent good enough to be in the top 36. But we were missing some huge pieces. We couldn't get past d00k, Louisville and Clemson in our own league.

Could we have been top 30 in the NET? Yes, with wins against Stanford, Wake and Pitt and being on the right side of just one of those Q1 games (the d00k, Fla or M.St game). But we didn't. And it wasn't just poor coaching. It was because we were missing two big pieces.
 
Centerpiece said:
I agree to disagree. We were missing a floor leader, a leader who started. And we were missing a legit big. Had to have them both to be top 25 ALL year long. Also Elliott's TO/A ratio wasn't where it needs to be for top 25 - all year long.

Of course we had talent. We had talent good enough to be in the top 36. But we were missing some huge pieces. We couldn't get past d00k, Louisville and Clemson in our own league.

Could we have been top 30 in the NET? Yes, with wins against Stanford, Wake and Pitt and being on the right side of just one of those Q1 games (the d00k, Fla or M.St game). But we didn't. And it wasn't just poor coaching. It was because we were missing two big pieces.
Click to expand...
Yes, we will just have to agree to disagree. Snoop provided some metrics, there are many more, including the "eye test." They should have been top 25 all year. That they weren't mainly falls on the coaching staff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top