Parrish Calls ol' roy an Idiot

[BD80]

Well, reading between the lines, it seemed clear to me that Parrish calls ol' roy an idiot for trying to make Henson play away from the basket:


John Henson figured he could do it because Roy Williams figured he could do it, and if a Hall of Fame coach has enough confidence in your skill set to move you away from the basket despite the fact that you're 6-feet-10, well, then you must be the next Kevin Durant.

Or not.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/14025061


So Henson struggled. In limited out-of-position minutes, he struggled. This elite prospect, widely regarded as the nation's top-ranked power forward in the Class of 2009, never seemed ... comfortable as a small forward.


He'll go from the biggest disappointment of last season's freshman class to the biggest star of this season's sophomore class. ...he'll do it all because of one simple reason.

"I'm back down low," Henson said. ...

As a big.

Just like he should've been doing all along.

Now I didn't get a degree in journalism from unc, but it sounds to me like Parrish is saying that ol' roy screwed the pooch by playing one of the top recruits in the nation out of position. Didn't Gary get the press release that ol roy has won a game in 20 straight NCAA tournaments? Strike that. 20 out of the last 21 tournaments?

[SilkyJ]

Well, he also said this, and it makes a lot of sense:



Henson was asked to play away from the basket, mostly because the Tar Heels had too many other true bigs -- Ed Davis, Deon Thompson, Tyler Zeller, Travis and David Wear, etc. -- on the roster.

The Tarheels needed wing players...

[oldnavy]

Well, he also said this, and it makes a lot of sense:



The Tarheels needed wing players...

Not to be snarky or sound snarky, but the tarheels needed to win games last year and a better coach would have recognized that and played to his players strengths rather than to his ego and his own methods and style. BUT hey! It worked for 20 years dang nab it!!!

[thenameisbond]

My recollection is also that Henson fancied himself as being skilled enough to be a wing player in the NBA and Ol' Roy assured him that he would have the opportunity to do so at UNC when he was recruiting him.

[Dukeface88]

Well, he also said this, and it makes a lot of sense:


Henson was asked to play away from the basket, mostly because the Tar Heels had too many other true bigs -- Ed Davis, Deon Thompson, Tyler Zeller, Travis and David Wear, etc. -- on the roster.

The Tarheels needed wing players...

Which is still Roy's fault. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[Turtleboy]

If 6' 10" 220 lb. Ryan Kelly couldn't get on the floor as a power forward because he was getting pushed around, I wouldn't think 6' 10" 185 lb. Henson could either.

[taiw93]

I don't think you can blame this one entirely on Roy; a player with Henson's skill set should be able to handle the SF position, if he must do so for the sake of the team. Keep in mind, we played singler (a natural 3/4) at the 5 his freshman year because we had to for the sake of the team, and he played magnificently down low. Henson's versatility obviously isn't all it was cracked up to be.

[Duvall]

I don't think you can blame this one entirely on Roy; a player with Henson's skill set should be able to handle the SF position, if he must do so for the sake of the team.

What skillset? Henson didn't have any SF skills - that was the problem - and a Hall of Fame coach should have realized that before the kid arrived on campus.

[SilkyJ]

Not to be snarky or sound snarky, but the tarheels needed to win games last year and a better coach would have recognized that and played to his players strengths

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I think you are saying coaches have to adapt to their personnel. Ok, I agree. Being more specific, I guess there are two main options in this instance: 1) you change what you do and game-plan around a specific guy. For example, K has said we will change our offense b/c of Kyrie. Option 2) Get a talented guy on the floor, even if its out of position, b/c that's where the "need" is (and/or because the guys at his position are better than him) like Kyle for his first 2 years when we needed help in the post. In Henson's case, there was both a need on the wing AND the guys in front of him in the post where better than him.

Now, obviously, Kyle was more effective "out of position" in the post than Henson was "OOP" on the wing, but was Henson so good of a talent last year that he should have been playing in the post, even with all the other talent that was there ahead of him: Thompson, Zeller, and Davis?? Methinks not.

Roy is still at fault for not finding the right lineup and figuring out what works, but to say Roy should have been playing Henson in the post from the get-go is a tough argument for me to buy into. That means displacing Thompson, Davis, or Zeller's minutes all of whom are/were pretty good players and expected to have big seasons (and were having good seasons before the wheels fell off).

I guess a 3rd option is that he shouldn't have played hardly any minutes at SF and instead should have only been a sub for the other post players. That's fine, but Roy clearly saw a lot of potential in him and wanted to try and get him minutes. Makes sense, and also allows us to blame Roy for not abandoning that idea if/when it became clear that Henson couldn't handle the SF position and for not moving him back to a post rotation player asap.

(I thought this through while typing, a bit stream of consciousness....I'm going with option 3. He should have given him a look at the 3, saw it didn't work, and moved him into the post rotation, even if it meant cutting down his minutes.)

[Class of '94]

My recollection is also that Henson fancied himself as being skilled enough to be a wing player in the NBA and Ol' Roy assured him that he would have the opportunity to do so at UNC when he was recruiting him.

I read or heard the samething from either an older thread or espn article; and to be fair to Roy, maybe that's why he waited so long to put Henson back at the 4 because he promised/agreed that Henson would be at the 3 as part of his recruiting pitch. Saying that, Roy should've recognized that it wasn't working and moved him to the 4 sooner.

[kong123]

Not to be snarky or sound snarky, but the tarheels needed to win games last year and a better coach would have recognized that and played to his players strengths rather than to his ego and his own methods and style. BUT hey! It worked for 20 years dang nab it!!!


if it wasn't snarky, it wouldn't be you!!

seriously though, it does make sense. Henson finally started to see time down low once Davis, Zeller, and one or both of the twins went down. Also, before the season started, Roy sat down with Henson and his father to discuss where Henson would play. You have to remember, when UNC started recruiting Henson he was a shorter kid. He had a massive growth spurt and suddenly he is 6'10". Whatever skill level he had was playing as a guard. As you saw last year, the kid has no offensive game. Why would you play him down low if you have 5 other guys in front of him to play the same spot? Once you look at everything, you see that Roy played him at the 3 because he wasn't better than 3 or 4 of the guys in front of him in the post. Sure, Roy screwed a lot of things up last year, mostly with his mouth, but this isn't one of them.

[oldnavy]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I think you are saying coaches have to adapt to their personnel. Ok, I agree. Being more specific, I guess there are two main options in this instance: 1) you change what you do and game-plan around a specific guy. For example, K has said we will change our offense b/c of Kyrie. Option 2) Get a talented guy on the floor, even if its out of position, b/c that's where the "need" is (and/or because the guys at his position are better than him) like Kyle for his first 2 years when we needed help in the post. In Henson's case, there was both a need on the wing AND the guys in front of him in the post where better than him.

Now, obviously, Kyle was more effective "out of position" in the post than Henson was "OOP" on the wing, but was Henson so good of a talent last year that he should have been playing in the post, even with all the other talent that was there ahead of him: Thompson, Zeller, and Davis?? Methinks not.

Roy is still at fault for not finding the right lineup and figuring out what works, but to say Roy should have been playing Henson in the post from the get-go is a tough argument for me to buy into. That means displacing Thompson, Davis, or Zeller's minutes all of whom are/were pretty good players and expected to have big seasons (and were having good seasons before the wheels fell off).

I guess a 3rd option is that he shouldn't have played hardly any minutes at SF and instead should have only been a sub for the other post players. That's fine, but Roy clearly saw a lot of potential in him and wanted to try and get him minutes. Makes sense, and also allows us to blame Roy for not abandoning that idea if/when it became clear that Henson couldn't handle the SF position and for not moving him back to a post rotation player asap.

(I thought this through while typing, a bit stream of consciousness....I'm going with option 3. He should have given him a look at the 3, saw it didn't work, and moved him into the post rotation, even if it meant cutting down his minutes.)

I don't think Henson should have been in the post, but he may have been better off in the PF position rather than the "3". It seems to me that he did move later in the season and played a little better. I was never impressed with Thompson's effort and Zeller was OK at best to me. I do think that Henson has the most upside of any of the returning heels if he can find his position.

[MChambers]

I read or heard the samething from either an older thread or espn article; and to be fair to Roy, maybe that's why he waited so long to put Henson back at the 4 because he promised/agreed that Henson would be at the 3 as part of his recruiting pitch. Saying that, Roy should've recognized that it wasn't working and moved him to the 4 sooner.

I think someone here said that Henson's parents were dead set on him playing the 3, and Ol' Roy agreed to it.

[dukeimac]

Henson is a twinner. Something between a 3 and a 4.

No way that guy can be a power forward. He has the length to block shots but no way he can use his power to get a rebound, he has no power. In the NBA they will use and abuse him at the 4.

No way that guy can be a swing / small forward because he has no skills to take the ball to the basket. He doesn't have a good handle on the ball, at all.

The pros will give him a shot because of his upside but he will not be a pro long. Remember one team selected Bowie over Jordan.

[MarkD83]

I think someone here said that Henson's parents were dead set on him playing the 3, and Ol' Roy agreed to it.

This is a recipe for disaster. The coach should be allowed to coach. If the kid's parents decide to coach maybe they should ask the AD for a job. This reminds me of what happened with Burgess at Duke.

[roywhite]

I don't think Henson should have been in the post, but he may have been better off in the PF position rather than the "3". It seems to me that he did move later in the season and played a little better. I was never impressed with Thompson's effort and Zeller was OK at best to me. I do think that Henson has the most upside of any of the returning heels if he can find his position.

Upside yet doesn't have a position? A bit of a dilemma?

Last year, Henson was not skilled enough to play on the perimeter and really not strong enough to play inside.

But, yes, there is an upside---great length, quick, very fast, can block or alter shots; he can dominate play for short periods of time by making plays defensively and offensively. It wasn't easy to fit him in last year, and I'm not saying Roy did a good job of utilizing him.

Just saying the jury is still out as to whether this guy is a star in the making, or just kind of a flawed wannabe. Both Roy and Henson need to figure it out this year. Interesting to see how it goes.

[kong123]

Upside yet doesn't have a position? A bit of a dilemma?

Last year, Henson was not skilled enough to play on the perimeter and really not strong enough to play inside.

But, yes, there is an upside---great length, quick, very fast, can block or alter shots; he can dominate play for short periods of time by making plays defensively and offensively. It wasn't easy to fit him in last year, and I'm not saying Roy did a good job of utilizing him.

Just saying the jury is still out as to whether this guy is a star in the making, or just kind of a flawed wannabe. Both Roy and Henson need to figure it out this year. Interesting to see how it goes.


One thing that is apparent early on is how well the kids seem to be getting along. There a multiple accounts from people on the IC that have actually seen HB, Bullock, Henson, and KM out in CH. People have captured the interaction in video's taken from their cell phones posted them on the site. All four are great young men, even Bullock. Last years team had no chemistry between the freshmen and the upperclassmen. I think this well help the team gel together more quickly and also help the team get through the tough spots when they occur.

[Bob Green]

But, yes, there is an upside---great length, quick, very fast, can block or alter shots; he can dominate play for short periods of time by making plays defensively and offensively.

I agree Henson has an upside. He appears to be a classic case of a player who needs more time to physically mature. Conventional wisdom says big men take longer to develop because their physical skills are not in sync with their basketball skills. Henson could develop into a scary good player before it is all said and done. Hopefully he lives up to his superstar billing once he is in the NBA. :cool:

[jipops]

even Bullock.

You say it like it is hard to believe. :D

[roywhite]

One thing that is apparent early on is how well the kids seem to be getting along. There a multiple accounts from people on the IC that have actually seen HB, Bullock, Henson, and KM out in CH. People have captured the interaction in video's taken from their cell phones posted them on the site. All four are great young men, even Bullock. Last years team had no chemistry between the freshmen and the upperclassmen. I think this well help the team gel together more quickly and also help the team get through the tough spots when they occur.

I don't doubt it, and it's important.

I'm still unsure how Henson fits in. Put him as a starter at the "4" and play him 26-28 minutes? Where's the physical presence up front? Zeller?

[MChambers]

One thing that is apparent early on is how well the kids seem to be getting along. There a multiple accounts from people on the IC that have actually seen HB, Bullock, Henson, and KM out in CH. People have captured the interaction in video's taken from their cell phones posted them on the site. All four are great young men, even Bullock. Last years team had no chemistry between the freshmen and the upperclassmen. I think this well help the team gel together more quickly and also help the team get through the tough spots when they occur.

Remember those pictures from some party, on a lake maybe, showing Henson in all his slender glory, with coeds draped on him? The team seemed to have chemistry then.

[kong123]

i think we all would have had chemistry at that party:cool:

[yancem]

I think that the issue is less about Henson playing the sf position and more about how he was utilized at the sf position. Defensively he caused some havoc on the wing with his length and athleticism. It was difficult for a lot of other sf's to get their shot off. Offensively they should have put him in the post more to make use of his length. At 6'10" he had a nice height advantage over pretty much every sf he faced and while he lacked the bulk to bang down low as a pf, that wasn't much of an issue against most of the other sf's.

I know that unc had several other post players but you play the miss matches and Henson against most opposing sf's was a miss match in the post.

[roywhite]

I know that unc had several other post players but you play the miss matches and Henson against most opposing sf's was a miss match in the post.

Yeah, he had that dynamite 6-foot jump hook that he used to shoot from 8 feet away.

[Duvall]

Yeah, he had that dynamite 6-foot jump hook that he used to shoot from 8 feet away.

Between Henson's hook shot, Drew's passes, Strickland's jumper and the Wear twins' general Wearness, the 2010 Heels will be sorely missed.

[roywhite]

Between Henson's hook shot, Drew's passes, Strickland's jumper and the Wear twins' general Wearness, the 2010 Heels will be sorely missed.

Add in Ginyard's attitude, sieve-like defensive play, toxic team chemistry, some injuries, and a clueless coach---why, it was a dadgum catastrophe.

[Devilsfan]

When a business suddenly goes South the C.E.O should be held responsible especially by the stockholders and/or board of directors. I am surprised Ol' Roy didn''t blame Bush for his fallen image as a top flight head coach.

[Newton_14]

Yeah, he had that dynamite 6-foot jump hook that he used to shoot from 8 feet away.

Not only that, but he proved that like Shackleford from back in the day that he was "amphibious" and could shoot that hook shot with either hand!:eek:

Seriously, I am torn on this. I think most every poster in this thread has hit on at least some part of the Henson freshman story that was correct.

I do remember reading that Henson and his family wanted the SF role for him and Roy promised that. Later the story seemed to change to "he is out there because the other bigs are better than Henson is in the post". I specifically remember a quote from Deon Thompson about 10 games in or so, that Henson was "too skinny to play in the post, so he has to be out there on the wing"

So it is unclear what is truly correct there. Some say he was on the wing because his skillset would allow him to thrive out there, and others stick with the post depth and skinniness as the reason. Not sure we will ever know.

What I do feel comfortable with saying is I do not believe we would have ever seen Henson at the 4 last year without the injuries to Zeller, Davis, and The Wears. I really don't. Roy did not put Henson at the 4 until the injuries forced his hand, and voila! the kid instantly starts making contributions.

Had those injuries not happened, I am convinced that Henson would have slid to the end of the bench and would have seen little to no PT down the stretch. The other specific quote I remember came from Roy in late December/early January, in which he stated the following: "At some point you have to earn your minutes. I can't keep playing you just because you have a nice smile". That was Roy's answer to a reporter who asked him his thoughts on the progress of Henson.

So I do think it is fair to say that Roy mishandled the kid in regards to position. Just my two cents...

[dukeballboy88]

I do remember reading that Henson and his family wanted the SF role for him and Roy promised that.


like i said before, it is no telling what roy tells recruits to get them to sign.