From: Craig.Simpson@launchpad.unc.edu (Craig Simpson)
Subject: Re: Dean Smith (Re: UNC TARHEELS--1992/93 NCAA BSKTBLL. CHAMPS)
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:42:58 GMT

In article <29373@oasys.dt.navy.mil> you write:
>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.
>

Name the teams and the dates!  Also show how this has *not* happened
anywhere else.  You make it sound like it happens all the time, so
names and dates.  I mean, if a team can win over 80% of its games and
get to the Sweet 16 11 years in a row and yet still "disintigrates to
almost any team", what does a team that doesn't do?

>
>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.
>

Again, names.  When has Dean told a player not to score?  If a player,
any player, has a good shot they are allowed to take it.  That is,
if a player, given his skills, has "a good chance" to score, Dean
lets them take the shot.  If you know otherwise GIVE ME A NAME!
They used to have a green light with regards to three point shooting
but last night Dean said on the local callin show, that this is no
longer true.  Anyone can shoot the three if they have a good shot.

> >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.
>
First you say that "Since Dean Smith is conservative and stresses
teamwork, this can restrict how a player can use his talents."  Then
you say, "UNC has had some one-player teams.  Very bad, because
basketball is essentially a game of teamwork."  You are again trying
to have it both ways.  If basketball is a game of teamwork then how
can letting a player do anything he wants to score, at the expense of
his teammates, be good basketball?  Also I would like to know about
these one-player teams.  Why do you think that these happen?  Could it
be because of the talent level of the team?  Perhaps because of the
lack of experience of the team.  Lets look at last years team.  This
was indeed a one man team on the offensive end (seems to me the kind
of UNC team that you favor, I'm not really sure becuase to seem to
change your mind from paragraph to paragraph).  Why was this?  Because
of some really bad recruiting years UNC was left with a team of 1
senior 2 juniors and 5 sophs as their main players.  For all but two
(Lynch and Davis) it was their first time as the people being counted
on.  Did they struggle?  YES.  Are they better this year?  YES.  Are
they relying on only one player to score?  NO.  Has Dean now told them
that they can score?  NO.  They just know the system better and can
take their shots when they get them.

> >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.
>

in article 20796 you say:

"lacking good point guards (this often doesn't show up until at critical 
games); lack of leadership at awkward times (because of point guard); "

Now you rave about what a good player Black was, later you talk about
how good Ford was.  Again your trying to have it both ways.


> >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 grn 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.
>

in article 20796 you say:

"Perhaps you'll like to humor us by explaining why UNC lost to Kansas
two years ago in the Final Four?  Or what about the loss to Ohio State
in the NCAA playoffs last year?  In both games UNC was favored to win."

Now you say:

"No wonder why this team lost to OSU who had a better teamwork and a 
more balanced offense."

Besides the fact that you were wrong about UNC being favored over tOSU,
how do you make such a jump?

> >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.
>

Given the inconsistency of your posts I do not doubt that I am confused.
However if you say that Dean only gives the "grean light" to certain players
then you should be able to give me names of players who did not have the
"green light".

NAMES, NAMES, NAMES!!!

>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.
>

How about Andrew Markham (see article 20866 and its followup).  I also
know of one other who as disagreed via e-mail who I will not name.  

However, lets look at your "recognized characteristics"

1. Slow starts.

   I have never said that this is not a trait of UNC.  What I have said
is that your reasons are full of shit.  It has nothing to do with the
system, or with Dean as a coach.  The problem is with the intensity 
level of the team.  Dean does not believe that he should have to fire
up his team to play well, that the system should take care of itself.
Most of the time he is correct.  If Duke has one thing over UNC it is
its intensity level.  It is always high.  Slow starts has nothing to
do with "green lights" of always starting the same people.  If UNC
comes out flat and the other team is playing real well, then sometimes
UNC falls behind.  Then at the half Dean will make adjustments and
UNC usally comes back.  If you want to fault Dean for this, then fine.
If you want to fault Dean for poor recruiting years then fine, but to
fault the system because of the reasons you've listed is wrong (and full
of shit IMHO).

2.  Slow second half starts

    This is just not true.  You bring up the tOSU game as an example
but you also say that tOSU was a real good team.  I think that has
more to do with it then any faults in UNC's system.  As is the case
when an inferior team keeps up with UNC for a half, UNC will make
adjustments and come out smoking in the second half.  This also holds
true when UNC is the inferior team.  See also the Duke ACC-finals game
last year.

>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?
>

UNC had a real drop off level of talent after the 76 team.  Contrary
to what everyone seems to think, UNC does not get everyone it wants.
Look at the players on the late 70's, they were good, but none really
had much of an impact in the NBA.  This same drop of talent happened
after the 87 team.  We got good players like Fox and Chillcut but we
missed the K. Andersons and B. Owens and of course K. Williams.  Then
we had to catch up with one big recruiting year, this left us with
little experience.  That is the reason for the struggles of the last few
years, not Dean's system.

> >>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.

NAMES, NAMES, NAMES.  When did Dean say this?????  Here is an example
with names and even quotes.  When Rice was a senior and Phelps was a
freshman, it was obvious that Phelps was the better defensive Player.
For several games before Phelps got hurt, he did indeed start over
Rice, although Rice got the majority of the minutes.  After one game a
reporter asked Dean why Rice did not start and he said something like
"Because Phelps graded out higher on defense and that is how we
determine who starts."  I have every boxscore of UNC's from the 83-84
team on and I you want me to pull out games that show "once a player
became a starter, he stayed as a starter" is false, I will.

>
> >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.
>

Again, NAMES, NAMES, NAMES.  I cannot argue against ghosts.  If you tell
me which seniors kept their starting postions, maybe I can explain why.

> >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.
>

I'm not confusing anything.  Yes to have to be a good defensive player
to play for dean, what I'm saying is the *best* defensive players start
and the players Dean feels he needs to win get the most playing time.
I was not saying that defense in not important, but that who starts is
not important.  It is you who is confused.

> >>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.
>

You say "I don't agree with Dean's philosophy."  The you say, "This is
why UNC is consistantly good year after year."  Huh????

>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.
>

I say "They play essentially the same system but with better talent
they will play it better".  You say, "I disagree".  Then you say,
"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."  Again your trying to have it both ways.
Dean is either a bad coach because he keeps the same system or he is
one of the greatest coaches because of said system.  It can't be both.

> >>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".
>
> >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.
>

Nor do the official polls mean anything.  Duke at home should be favored
over just about anyone.  #5 vs. #6 is not a significant difference.
Of course Michigan is now #3 and UNC is now #6 (AP poll) so maybe
the polls were wrong before.  It was not an upset.

>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.

Name the papers and sports magazines (and give the quote).

> >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.

Which was my point in the first place.  All of your posts compaining about
UNC's play is not based on any games that you've seen this year.  Watch
the games before making comments like:

"Well after UNC's recent loss to Michigan, it looks like UNC and Dean Smith
need to do something if they're going to beat teams of the likes of Michigan
in order to advance to the Final Four..."

If you don't have the knowledge, then don't make the statements.

Craig Simpson
craig@unx.sas.com (please send mail here)

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college