From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college
Subject: Re: Dean Smith (Re: UNC TARHEELS--1992/93 NCAA BSKTBLL. CHAMPS)
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:55:49 GMT
Reply-To: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center

In rec.sport.basketball.college, Craig.Simpson@launchpad.unc.edu (Craig 
Simpson) writes:

 >>Ever since I have seen UNC disintegrate to almost any team.
 >
 >If by this you mean that on any given night UNC might lose to another
 >team then yes this is true, however show me another team where this
 >is not the case.

Yes, on any night.  Also, any team can disintegrate to any team, but
with all the talent Dean Smith has, this can be hard to accept.

 >>UNC has had a lot of superstars over the years; some get green light 
 >>to score at will; many don't.
 >
 >I have no idea what you mean here, are you trying to say that Dean keeps
 >superstars from scoring?  If so then please give me their names.

I can't believe that you, the UNC fan, aren't aware that Dean Smith
gives green light only to certain players. 

 >Until you do I'll assume that you meant that Dean will not give players
 >the right take over the game by doing what ever they want.  Well this
 >is true but I don't see your point.

Ah, now you're agreeing with me about Dean Smith not giving some players 
free reins.  This is what I was talking about in first place, the green
light.  The point is that "green light" gives the player freedom to
score whenever he thinks he has a good chance.  Since Dean Smith is
conservative and stresses teamwork, this can restrict how a player can
use his talents.  I'm not saying that this is wrong or right; this needs
to be judged on case-by-case.

 >Very few teams with one player doing all the scoring really do well.

Yes.  That's the problem with UNC over the years.  UNC has had some
one-player teams.  Very bad, because basketball is essentially a game
of teamwork.

 >Also remember that superstars like Jordan also played with some very
 >talented players, players like Worthy, Perkins, Daughtery, Smith, Wolf.

The year when UNC won the National Championship was when UNC had Worthy,
Perkins, and Jordon.  Point guard was Jimmy Black, who was a very good
one.  This was a real team with excellent teamwork.  Another starter
was Matt Doherty (spelling?) who wasn't much of a scorer but was a very
good defensive player and teamplayer.  A very nicely balanced offense,
and a pretty quick team, too.  Jimmy Black was very good at calling
the offense plays as a point guard.

 >This is the case with almost all players at UNC.  However if you must 
 >look at *scoring machines* then you only have to look to last years 
 >team.  Davis was the only real scoring threat and Dean let him do 
 >anything he wanted.  You will note that when Davis strugled, the whole 
 >team did as well. 

Last year was basically a one-player team with Hubert Davis as the consistent
scorer.  I believe that only Hubert Davis had the green light from Dean
Smith to take shots from anywhere on the court. Other players had too 
many ups and downs, offensively speaking. Not much of a scoring team.  
No wonder why this team lost to OSU who had a better teamwork and a 
more balanced offense.

 >Again please give the names of the players that Dean has kept from 
 >scoring.

I think you're confused.  I am not saying that Dean Smith is keeping
anyone from scoring.  I mean that Dean Smith gives green light only
to certain players to score at will from anywhere on the court.

 >>I have recognized many characteristics that UNC
 >>& Dean Smith developed over the years and display every year. Some are:
 >>slow starts, falling back and chasing up; losing to "surprise teams";
 >>lacking good point guards (this often doesn't show up until at critical
 >>games); lack of leadership at awkward times (because of point guard);
 >
 >This statement alone shows that you don't much about UNC basketball,
 >from Ford to Black to Smith to Phelps UNC has had *outstanding* point
 >play (Lebo and Rice were good but not great).  All had outstanding
 >leadership, shown by the fact that Ford, Black, Lebo and Rice all
 >all coaches (not to mention Eddie Fogler).  Ford was a three time
 >AA and national player of the year and Smith was a two time AA and
 >the Basketball Times POY.  Since you have not really seen Phelps
 >play this year, you have no right to comment on his play.  This statement
 >is a joke and shows you to be a fool.

On the contrary, I think this shows that you haven't recognized the 
characteristics of the Dean Smith teams.  Several people have told me 
that they agreed with my observation; none have disagreed with me except 
you.

Again, with Phil Ford, UNC did have another one-man team during his
career (not throughout, but the last part of his career). Again, UNC 
didn't go far without a solid teamwork.  It was a shame because Phil
Ford was one of the greatest shooting guard and a dribbler I have ever 
seen - he made the Four Corner offense work smoothly. For some reasons
I can't remember, Dean Smith couldn't come up with a solid team for 
him.  Injuries?

 >>too many passes and no one willing to take a shot; the seniors have
 >>it all; once a player becomes a starter, he's a permanent starter
 >>regardless he's improving or not; etc.
 >
 >Names, names, names!!!! Who the hell are you talking about????

It was Dean Smith who said that once a player became a starter, he stayed
as a starter forever under him.  Of course, this was years ago.  Dean
Smith may have changed his philosophy today, but I don't see him benching
a starter because a younger player is playing better.

 >I'm sure that Wenstrom, Cherry, and Stephenson might disagree with
 >you about seniors *having it all*. 

These aren't starters, so this doesn't apply to them.  However, seniors
do have privileges, which I don't consider not unrealistic; in fact,
I support this.  But when a senior starter isn't doing well, he should 
be benched until he improves.

 >Dean says the best *defensive* players earn the starting spot and that
 >he does not really consider it importent.  What he looks at is playing
 >time.  So instead of looking at starters look at PT.

I disagree with you.  Dean Smith did say that defense is important if
you want to play for him.  Only players who can play good defense play
for him.  Again, I don't disagree with him.

You may be confusing the defense with the offense.  It was Dean Smith 
who said that the offense isn't important; it will pick up later.

 >>Believe it or not, I keep seeing the same characteristics every year,
 >>for many years.  That's why I said that UNC and Dean need to do something
 >>if they're going to beat the teams in the likes of Michigan.  I don't
 >>have to see many games to identify the kind of the season UNC is going
 >>to have this year.
 >
 >This is total BS.  They play essentially the same system but with
 >better talent they will play it better.  To not watch games and
 >see how the players are playing that system you have no basis to
 >judge anything.

Again, I disagree.  Dean Smith does not change his system, style, or 
philosophy just for a certain player.  All players are molded into Dean's 
system and shaped as a teamplayer.  Again, I don't agree with Dean's 
philosophy. This is why UNC is consistantly good year after year.

This is why Dean's teams are pretty much the same year after year -
same solid teamwork, teamplay, etc.  Of course, there are variants in
Dean's teams depending on the players he has, but basically, Dean's
teams are the same year after year.  This is why Dean is one of the
greatest coaches, if not the greatest.  He sticks to the same system
year after year.

 >>The UNC team is pretty much the same team year after
 >>year, regardless of who's on the team.  Some UNC teams do get better,
 >>like this year's team because of a solid center in Montross. And some
 >>UNC teams do get worse.  However, because of Dean's teamwork philosophy,
 >>excellent coaching, etc., UNC will do well year after year. But UNC
 >>won't have a championship team unless Dean Smith eliminates some of
 >>the bad characteristics that I've pointed out.
 >
 >Of course you do know that UNC already has a championship under Smith
 >(or perhaps you forgot, you don't seem to know much else).  The
 >amazing thing is that he did so with those same "bad characteristics".

You're missing the point completely, and it may be my fault. I didn't 
mean to imply that all of Dean's teams had the same "bad characteristics" 
year after year, or that all characteristics are bad. I said that his 
teams basically have the same characteristics (not always bad) year
after year, but not necessarily all characteristics (all good ones and
all bad ones).  This is what makes the personality of Dean's teams. 
In my earlier posting I listed just the bad characteristics, so I apologize.
Dean's teams do have many good characterstics that are noticable year 
after year.  This is what makes Dean Smith and UNC a consistent winner.

 >Ok, first you say that UNC must do a, b, c to be able to beat teams 
 >like Michigan then you say that Michigan pulled an upset.  You can't 
 >have it both ways.

This game was an upset because UNC was ranked higher than Michigan.
Anytime a higher ranked team loses to a lower ranked team, it is always 
an upset.  You may not think it was an upset, but, then, your opinion
doesn't count in the official polls.

You see, I am not having it my way.  It is not I who is calling this 
game an upset. It is the newspapers, sports magazines, etc., who are 
calling this game an upset.

 >As far as UNC *only* having a 1 point lead, well how about the fact 
 >that Michigan is a really good team.  To me it looked like to very 
 >evenly matched teams slugging it out for 40 minutes.  Do you really 
 >think that UNC should have blown out Michigan? 

Again, you're missing the point.  I am not saying that Michigan isn't
a good team, and that there was no justification for UNC's having a
one-point lead.  I only said that UNC managed only a one-point lead 
near at the end of the game which placed UNC in a very dangerous situation.  
If UNC was really a superior team, then UNC was pushing its luck too
far.  If Michigan was really a superior team, then it was a miracle
that UNC managed a one-point lead. If UNC and Michigan are evenly matched, 
then there's nothing to criticize.

As it turned out, Michigan was able to pull out a victory, and UNC ended 
up as a loser.  I didn't see this game, and I was asking why UNC had
only one-point lead.  I was not aware how close the game was, or how
well both UNC and Michigan were playing. I mentioned that I was watching 
another game and the station inserted captions that UNC was 8 points 
(if I subtracted correctly) behind only a short time into the first 
half (five to eight minutes, I think). This brought me to comment
about UNC's having another slow start, and ask if this was the case.

Remember that UNC was ranked above Michigan (although not much), so
I was expecting UNC to win the game.  Naturally, when I learned that 
UNC lost to Michigan, I was disappointed.  Later, when I heard how hard 
fought the game was and how much improved Michigan was, I could understand
the outcome of the game.  If I had watched the game, I probably wouldn't
have been displeased in first place.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------