We are Div 1 version of Pfieffer

Our offense looks sickenly similar to that run by a small school outfit like Pfieffer. They rely on the perimeter game, gimick defenses, and the like to make up for a lack of quality athletes. Has Bobby figured out that we now have quality athletes and don’t have to rely on that small school strategy to compete? After reading Doyel’s article and wondering why Withers’ game is nowhere close to where it was last year, I am left wondering if this is our problem. Can Bobby evolve his strategy and technique to fit the big time athletes we are now getting or will he always be dependent on perimeter play and gimick defenses due to a lack of quality big men?

Interestingly enough, I hear a ton of NC State fans complaining the same song about Herb Sendek. Me personally, I like structured basketball, but I don’t like a “system.” A “system” should be designed for each individual year, not for a program.

we dont have a lack of quality athletes. if there is one thing we dont lack its quality athletes.

That’s my point. We no longer lack quality athletes, but yet we run a system designed around the concept of not having quality athletes.

Bobby doesnt develop his players. Mitchell hasnt developed, Grier saw he wasnt gonna develop and transfered, Martin had to go to community college and work on his game, and did Demon develop as a point guard? We have the most talent and as much ‘potential’ as any team weve ever had. Bobby just doesnt provide the structure or disipline for their growth. This greenlight or streetball style of basketball will get us a lot of recruits, but when they get here they will not develop as well as they would at another school. We now have better strength and conditioning but its the same style as 6 years ago. Thus the high number of JUCO transfers. Let someone else develop them before they come here. And the last thing he works with is the interior guys.

[b]Mitchell hasnt developed,[/b]

You’re joking right? Mitch has developed considerably while he’s been here. He’s developed patience, a jump shot and knowledge on how to run a team. To say he hasn’t developed is to say he’s the same player he was as a freshmen. That is patently not the case.

[b]Grier saw he wasnt gonna develop and transfered,[/b]

Grier wanted to be a star, had nothing to do with not developing, he thought he was already developed.

It’s hilarious how people on this board are always ready to burn Bobby at the stake each time we take an L. Compound that with the vast amount of untapped expertise in Div I college basketball analysis and coaching we have here and it makes for an interesting read every day.

What’s even more hilarious is how some people on this board think their opinions are above reproach or others are wrong. Believe it or not, some of our opinions aren’t based on 1 loss, but on years of seeing more of the same wondering exactly what our program is missing. The board was set up to share those opinions independent of whether we are qualified or not. Welcome to America and continue to enjoy the comedy.

Mitchell was the starting point guard on the NC 4A state championship team. His development is minimal so its really a nature vs. nurture arguement - playing for three years with quality competition or developing under coaches guidance? He still mainly is a straight ahead fast break player who outruns everyone on the floor, as he was two years ago. Hes not really a shooting threat and doesnt break anyone down with the dribble. You say he runs the team but we cant run a half court offense! And aside from a few, few plays where he gets into the lane, our guards cant get the ball into the post.

[i]Originally posted by ChicagoNiner[/i]@Jan 20 2005, 10:55 PM [b] What's even more hilarious is how some people on this board think their opinions are above reproach or others are wrong. Believe it or not, some of our opinions aren't based on 1 loss, but on years of seeing more of the same wondering exactly what our program is missing. The board was set up to share those opinions independent of whether we are qualified or not. Welcome to America and continue to enjoy the comedy. [/b]
Pardon me while I cut down the Star Spangled Banner playing in the background. :rolleyes:

Did you see me say anything you said was wrong? Don’t believe you did so I guess you just had that 1st amendment sermon burning a hole in your pocket. :smiley:

My problem is with statements like, “Bobby can’t develop talent” or “Bobby got out coached” and the like. Last I checked there weren’t any former or current Div I basketball coaches who can speak from experience on these matters. The majority of this board are alumns who work jobs that aren’t coaching or students who have never done anything but been coached, and that was in high school.

[b]Can Bobby evolve his strategy and technique to fit the big time athletes we are now getting or will he always be dependent on perimeter play and gimick defenses due to a lack of quality big men? [/b]

That’s a legit question. One I’ve had myself on more than one occassion. Clearly Bobby’s style is to push it up the floor and run. He’s never been a half court style coach. I believe we have the talent to run that and be successful. I’ve questioned why Bobby ever recruited Iti in the first place. He’s not the type of player that fits his style.

I’m looking for how we rebound against Marquette. If we go into that game looking like we did at Cincy I will seriously question Lutz’s ability to prepare this team to deal with the loss of a key component. If we look unprepared and lost again, I’ll blame that on Lutz.

So who are you to say anything about Lutz or his ability to prepare this team for a game?

I forgot about all those years of D1 coaching you have under your belt.

[i]Originally posted by Powerbait[/i]@Jan 20 2005, 11:41 PM [b] So who are you to say anything about Lutz or his ability to prepare this team for a game?

I forgot about all those years of D1 coaching you have under your belt. [/b]


That’s precious PB and I know you’re real proud of yourself for posting it, but notice I said “question”, not state as fact.

Try and keep up. :rolleyes:

You’re right, I was just patting myself on the back and ordering a round of drinks for my accomplishment.

[i]Originally posted by Powerbait[/i]@Jan 21 2005, 12:04 AM [b] You're right, I was just patting myself on the back and ordering a round of drinks for my accomplishment. [/b]
Of that I have no doubt.

By the way MKNINER…what is Martins game? I’m still searching for it myself.And no,I don’t coach D.1 major college bball…but I happen to think you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that he’s totally outclassed against any team that can rebound…or drive…or has a pulse.I’m not kidding myself into thinking that Nance is the second coming of Shaq out there…but I think at least if an opponent drives the hoop with Chris,he’s gonna know it ain’t all peaches and cream.And,despite my lack of D1 coaching experience,I happen to think its the coaches job to put the best 5 out there…who knows…maybe Martin would be better off the bench.Shoot,the guys 4-5 inches taller than anyone else and coach doesn’t even have him jumping center…that should tell you something

[i]Originally posted by Hooligan[/i]@Jan 20 2005, 10:32 PM [b] Martin had to go to community college and work on his game [/b]
And just what community college was that? :rolleyes:

:blink:

Not quite sure where all that came from but whatever.

[b]what is Martins game?[/b]

I would imagine it’s to post up being a “7ft” center and all. He’s not very good at it in any case.

[b]And no,I don't coach D.1 major college bball...but I happen to think you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that he's totally outclassed against any team that can rebound.[/b]

Thanks for sharing and I agree.

[b]I'm not kidding myself into thinking that Nance is the second coming of Shaq out there...but I think at least if an opponent drives the hoop with Chris,he's gonna know it ain't all peaches and cream[/b]

I would tend to agree. I think Nance has earned the starting nod over Iti.

[b]And,despite my lack of D1 coaching experience,I happen to think its the coaches job to put the best 5 out there.[/b]

I’d say you can come to that conclusion through common sense. It’s not a revolutionary concept or anything.

[b]Shoot,the guys 4-5 inches taller than anyone else and coach doesn't even have him jumping center...that should tell you something[/b]

Yeah. It tells me Curt is quicker off his feet than Iti.

[i]Originally posted by Hooligan[/i]@Jan 20 2005, 10:58 PM [b] Mitchell was the starting point guard on the NC 4A state championship team. His development is minimal so its really a nature vs. nurture arguement - playing for three years with quality competition or developing under coaches guidance? [/b]
Two things.

A. Mitchell never played a day of PG in his life for WS Reynolds. He was 2g the entire time. He came to school as a 2G and converted into a PG. He currently has an in conference 4 to 1 Assist to Turnover ratio. He has developed. Maybe not into a scorer, but into a solid player.

B. This has nothing to do with the nature/nurture debate. Nature says that a player is going to be a good player regardless of all other factors. Nurture says that the player is the product of his environment. A product of playing for Coach Lutz, a product of playing 3 years against good competiton. If nature were true, than it wouldn’t matter who a player played for or even if he played at all. Everyone knows that is baloney. That being said, would Mitch have developed more under a different coach? Maybe, but nobody ever compared Lutz to Coach K or Dean Smith. Right now many feel he is just the best we have available to us. I keep my thoughts on that underwrap.

[i]Originally posted by Hooligan[/i]@Jan 20 2005, 11:58 PM [b] Mitchell was the starting point guard on the NC 4A state championship team. His development is minimal so its really a nature vs. nurture arguement - playing for three years with quality competition or developing under coaches guidance? He still mainly is a straight ahead fast break player who outruns everyone on the floor, as he was two years ago. Hes not really a shooting threat and doesnt break anyone down with the dribble. You say he runs the team but we cant run a half court offense! And aside from a few, few plays where he gets into the lane, our guards cant get the ball into the post. [/b]
Sorry, Mitch wasn't the starting point guard. Mitch played the 2 guard and 3 position in HS. Mitch dominated in HS because he was a supperior athlete and got most of his points in transition or taking to the basket in the half court set. As anyone who has watched Mitch's developement can attest, he can to us with no jump shot. Mitch has had difficulty his first 2 years adjusting to the college level and not having such a huge advantage athletically. We are only know starting to see the PG he can be and as he developes his play has and will become less erratic. I think the coaches have played a big part in making Mitch a successful college PG (a position he had rarely played before).
[i]Originally posted by 49erFan1+Jan 21 2005, 10:33 AM-->
[b]QUOTE[/b] (49erFan1 @ Jan 21 2005, 10:33 AM)

Both posters are right that Mitchell didn’t play PG in high school. I am impressed with how he has begin to develop into a decent pg here. In my opinion, finding a pure PG at the college level is very tough. Often times when you try to develop a player who is a Sg into a PG the player get’s wourse. Dave Odom tried to do that to Robert O’Kelley at Wake Forest and by the end of his junior season he was the 3rd scoring option on the team and a liability. He went from being the 2nd leading scorer in the ACC and ACC Rookie of the Year to that. Mitch has worked to develop into a quality pg and I look forward to seeing him continue to grow. (Important to note that I am not a Mitch “fan”, and in fact didn’t like him on our team at first, but his hard work and play have changed that).