PDA

View Full Version : Clemson Preview



Bob Green
09-12-2007, 08:35 AM
In terms of potential, the sky is the limit for Clemson in 2007-08. They could start 17-0 like last year, but unlike last year, continue to win. The incoming PG, Stitt, could be the key factor. Can he play at the ACC level from the get go? Clemson's situation is much like State's in that they are solid point guard play away from being really good.

Scoring Point
09-12-2007, 09:09 AM
While Stitt is important, Hammonds' ballhandling numbers from a year ago - 4.1 apg with 2.5:1 assist/TO ratio - suggest that he can handle the point if necessary. That is a much better Plan B than State has in my view.

riverside6
09-12-2007, 09:12 AM
I agree Hammonds could handle the point if necessary, but the fact is they really need Hammonds and Rivers to provide perimeter scoring to keep teams off Mays and Booker. If they add a decent shooting point guard, they would be pretty tough to stop.

That being said, they are still easily one of the worst free throw shooting teams in the ACC.

ACCBBallFan
09-12-2007, 09:45 AM
Clemson this year could be a lot like NC State was last year, a player away if they get into foul trouble. The difference though is Clemson can't hit FTs.

Their post players arenot exactly large either.

If things go well, Clemson should be in top half of ACC, a bubble team or better, but my guess is the streak at Dean Dome lives on this year.

Carlos
09-12-2007, 09:52 AM
A decent shooting point guard is exactly what Stitt isn't.

I think it's pretty clear that Clemson will start Mays, Booker, Hammonds, and Rivers. The question remains who takes that 5th spot.

If he's healthy - and that's a big if after knee surgery this summer - then the 5th starter could be Julius Powell. He gives them some perimeter shooting to complement Hammonds and Rivers. If he's not healthy thn my guess is that it will be either be Sam Perry or David Potter playing the small forward spot. Neither is that great shooter or even decent shooter that riverside was talking about, but I think they're likely a more attractive option than the alternatives.

I'm having a hard time seeing Stitts as that 5th guy because he's a poor outside shooter and he's an uptempo, high risk/reward kind of guy. If you have a team without a number of great scorers he would be a great fit because he can break his guy down, get in the lane, and make the great pass. Or... he can throw it into the stands. Clemson doesn't need that. They need someone who can get the ball into the hands of Booker, Mays, and Rivers. So instead of starting a freshman point guard I think they'll lean towards one of their more experienced forwards.

ACCBBallFan - Mays is 6-9/230, Sykes is 6-9/220 (6-11 with the hair), and Booker is 6-7/240. Only Booker could be considered undersized by college bball standards and he's such a load that it doesn't matter.

riverside6
09-12-2007, 10:05 AM
A decent shooting point guard is exactly what Stitt isn't.

I think it's pretty clear that Clemson will start Mays, Booker, Hammonds, and Rivers. The question remains who takes that 5th spot.

If he's healthy - and that's a big if after knee surgery this summer - then the 5th starter could be Julius Powell. He gives them some perimeter shooting to complement Hammonds and Rivers. If he's not healthy thn my guess is that it will be either be Sam Perry or David Potter playing the small forward spot. Neither is that great shooter or even decent shooter that riverside was talking about, but I think they're likely a more attractive option than the alternatives.

I'm having a hard time seeing Stitts as that 5th guy because he's a poor outside shooter and he's an uptempo, high risk/reward kind of guy. If you have a team without a number of great scorers he would be a great fit because he can break his guy down, get in the lane, and make the great pass. Or... he can throw it into the stands. Clemson doesn't need that. They need someone who can get the ball into the hands of Booker, Mays, and Rivers. So instead of starting a freshman point guard I think they'll lean towards one of their more experienced forwards.

ACCBBallFan - Mays is 6-9/230, Sykes is 6-9/220 (6-11 with the hair), and Booker is 6-7/240. Only Booker could be considered undersized by college bball standards and he's such a load that it doesn't matter.
Powell is a nice player, but I have a hard time seeing him play the small forward along side Booker and Mays. He has been used primarly at the 4 in his career so far, and while Mays could likely guard a small forward, I don't see Purnell doing that too often.

That being said, I could see Perry or Potter getting time with Rivers and Hammonds in the backcourt, but neither are quality shooters, and would allow teams to double-down on the two big guys.

gw67
09-12-2007, 10:21 AM
Again, DBR is pretty much on the money with their pre-season review, IMO. Clemson strengths are their experience, coaching, defense and the inside play of Mays and Booker. Last year they were a good passing team and they took care of the ball. Losing Hamilton may impact both areas. Their weaknesses are lousy free throw shooting, so-so three point shooting and the inability to win on the road/late in the season against ACC teams; although, they won three ACC road games last year. Most predict that they will be in the top 1/3 of the league. In order to reach this level, they need to win 5-6 at home and break even on the road. That may be difficult if they don’t improve their shooting from the foul line and three point territory.

gw67

gw67
09-12-2007, 10:44 AM
Carlos is correct in describing Booker as a real load. IMO, he is one of the most overlooked players coming into this season. Late last year as many freshmen were running out of gas, Booker came on strong. He has a good back-to-the-basket offensive game, is a strong offensive rebounder, runs the court well, and he passes effectively from the post. He is a good player, with strong fundamentals who should be one of the best frontcourt players in the league even though he was underrated by the recruiting gurus (I believe that he wasn't even in the top 150 by Rivals).

gw67

Carlos
09-12-2007, 11:26 AM
riverside - I would see Powell as the guy defending the SF position rather than Mays. At 6-7/220 he's a good size for the position and coming out of HS the book on him was that he could play either forward spot. He was also supposed to be a good shooter but his knee injury last year hindered him in that regard.

gw67 - Booker reminds me a lot of Travis Watson, perhaps with a little bit more explosion and a little less size.

riverside6
09-12-2007, 11:50 AM
Trevor Booker (http://www.scacchoops.com/forms/tt_player_page.asp?reporttype=Details&total=yes&hleague=0&howner=all&hplayer=273&pp=yes&season=2008&Splits=0&Career=-1) had an impressive freshman campaign. Here are his comparable players through their respective freshmen season...

Player Score
Brandan Wright 954.03
Dwayne Collins 927.78
Rasheed Wallace 913.24
Marvin Williams 905.00
Luol Deng 904.00
Nick Horvath 903.00
Sharone Wright 900.95
Jason Clark 899.00
Robert Brooks 898.00
Tyler Hansbrough 897.00
Josh McRoberts 896.00
Travis Watson 894.58
Brandon Costner 894.00
Brian Williams 893.99
Jamaal Levy 893.00

Those are some pretty impressive players listed (maybe the comp was made on Horvath's pickup performances?), as a result he is projected for the following numbers according to my site:

15.3 PPG
1.6 APG
8.8 RPG
0.9 SPG
2.0 BPG
2.1 TPG

Those are 1st or 2nd team All-ACC numbers, and I honestly could see him taking that step forward this season.

ACCBBallFan
09-12-2007, 03:59 PM
ACCBBallFan - Mays is 6-9/230, Sykes is 6-9/220 (6-11 with the hair), and Booker is 6-7/240. Only Booker could be considered undersized by college bball standards and he's such a load that it doesn't matter.

Thanks, Carlos. I had not looked them up but Mays is not that materially different than 6' 8" 220 for Kyle or Lance.

Trevor Booker is a little heavier than I thought and is a load, but again only 10 ounds more than King Taylor and an inch taller, but 20 pounds heaver and an inch shorter than lance or Kyle.

Key thing is can Clemson get good enough PG play out of Hammonds/Stitt to leverage their post players.

ACCBBallFan
09-12-2007, 04:04 PM
Did not mean to imply that Mays and Booker are not very good players, just that Duke could hold its own against them or at least not get dominated, which is all they have to do, with advantages at 1-3.

Wander
09-12-2007, 04:34 PM
Clemson strengths are their experience, coaching, defense and the inside play of Mays and Booker.

Coaching is one of Clemson's strengths? What convinced you of that, the free throw shooting or the late season collapses?



Last year they were a good passing team and they took care of the ball.


Eh, they weren't terrible, but they weren't great, either.

Here's a fun fact: Clemson had the single worst free throw rate in all of Division I last year. 336th out of 336 teams. I like Clemson to finish 5th in the ACC, but this needs to get better.

ACCBBallFan
09-12-2007, 05:43 PM
Coaching is one of Clemson's strengths? What convinced you of that, the free throw shooting or the late season collapses?


Yes, Clemson has improved every year that Oliver Purnell has been there.

Wander
09-12-2007, 06:05 PM
Yes, Clemson has improved every year that Oliver Purnell has been there.

He's not an awful coach, and I'm not saying he should be on the hot seat or anything, but calling the coaching a strength is a stretch at best. The free throw shooting is becoming a ridiculous joke, and some of that is on the coach. As is the ACC tournament record.

Carlos
09-12-2007, 08:30 PM
ACCBBallFan - I've seen Booker play and I've seen Taylor King play and the idea of Taylor defending Booker on the interior is not pretty. Ditto for anyone on Duke's team trying to check Mays.

riverside6
09-12-2007, 09:22 PM
In terms of skill, strength, and experience, James Mays and Trevor Booker are far above anything Duke can throw at them.

JasonEvans
09-12-2007, 11:10 PM
The folks in this thread have largely hit the nail on the head-- Clemson may be the best interior team in the ACC (Hasbro is so dominaint he may give Carolina the edge, but I think Clemson is probably a little better) while Duke is likely the best team on the perimeter in the ACC. Our game in mid-January will be one of the more intriuging matchups in the ACC because each team will be trying to inflict their style on the game.

That said, there is a reason college basketball tends to be a guard's game. I think it is easier, with the 3 point line, for guards to control a game. Plus, the nature of the officiating is different than in the NBA and it favors outside play more than the NBA does. For this reason, I like Duke's chance a lot against Clemson. Then again, I am always optimistic ;)

And then there is the FT shooting... if you are gonna be a team that bangs it inside, you gotta hit your FTs. If Clemson hits merely 68% of their FTs the past couple season, they easily pick up at least 2 more wins and make the NCAAs.

--Jason "Clemson will spend a lot of time in the top 25 this season" Evans

JasonEvans
09-12-2007, 11:12 PM
In terms of skill, strength, and experience, James Mays and Trevor Booker are far above anything Duke can throw at them.

Strength and experience I'll give you... and those are hugely important. But until we really know just how good Kyle Singler is (and he is supposed to be one of the most skilled big men in recent memory), I am not convinced Clemson has us on interior skills.

--Jason "I actually think Thomas and Zoubek have nice skills-- though the speed and physicality of the game limited them as freshmen" Evans

Carlos
09-12-2007, 11:33 PM
Actually, in terms of big men quality, you have to put NC State in the mix. Costner and McCauley are both elite big men and JJ Hickson may be the best freshman power player in the conference.

I'm also not sure you can give Duke the nod as the best perimeter team in the conference either. UNC, with Lawson, Ellington, Frasor, Green, and Ginyard could easily be considered better than Paulus, Nelson, Scheyer, Henderson, Smith, and Pocius.

Wander
09-12-2007, 11:40 PM
Actually, in terms of big men quality, you have to put NC State in the mix. Costner and McCauley are both elite big men and JJ Hickson may be the best freshman power player in the conference.

I'm also not sure you can give Duke the nod as the best perimeter team in the conference either. UNC, with Lawson, Ellington, Frasor, Green, and Ginyard could easily be considered better than Paulus, Nelson, Scheyer, Smith, and Pocius.

I think NC State has the best frontcourt in the ACC.

You're right in that we don't have the best backcourt as easily as some people on these boards think we do, but one big reason makes me think that ours will be better than UNC's: three point shooting.

ACCBBallFan
09-13-2007, 05:01 AM
ACCBBallFan - I've seen Booker play and I've seen Taylor King play and the idea of Taylor defending Booker on the interior is not pretty. Ditto for anyone on Duke's team trying to check Mays.
I was not suggesting Kingsnoggle as primary weapon, just an occasional diversion, but Booker and Mays would be equally troubled trying to guard King Taylor. So could be playing 3 for 2 while Zoubs gets some rest, or waits for his foul situation and gsame clock to be more in sync.

I would start Zoubek and Singler and depending on the competition, first sub would be Lance or King. When Singler is resting, two I would have on the floor are Lance and King, as there are problems with Zoubs matched with either or with McClure.

I disagree with those who think Zoubek needs to sit another year and then magically big mean develop in thrid year. There is no one near his size and he needs to be first option this year, just as Greg and Jon were given every opportunity to play through their learning curve in Greg's case the past two years.

That said, not likely to get much more than 20 MPG from Zoubek, max 25 MPG, and have to do best with cards they have for other post options.

Realistically Duke is a long shot NC contender. So using this year to develop Zoubek and Lance in case Monroe does not materialize for Duke IMO is a good investment, even if it may cost a couple of wins this year. The goal is to be there by March, not necessarily November, and to not be having the same discussion about post woes next couple of seasons, with or without Monroe who likely even if he is on board in 2009 is no help in 2010 season.

If King's offense is so impressive that he cannot sit, may be less of a defensive problem than alternatives as post defender where there is really no one else anyway than as wing defender, where Duke is in over supply situation not necessarily with defenders but players in general.

riverside6
09-13-2007, 07:47 AM
Strength and experience I'll give you... and those are hugely important. But until we really know just how good Kyle Singler is (and he is supposed to be one of the most skilled big men in recent memory), I am not convinced Clemson has us on interior skills.

--Jason "I actually think Thomas and Zoubek have nice skills-- though the speed and physicality of the game limited them as freshmen" Evans
Ok, I'll wiggle on skill, despite it being the first of the three I listed, it was the last one I added as I re-read my post.

In watching Singler over the past year, he is one player that can change a game both directly and indirectly, and I would certainly qualify him as a very skilled player.

gw67
09-13-2007, 09:16 AM
I made the point in an earlier post that I considered coaching to be one of Clemson's strengths this coming year. First, I like Purnell as a coach. He has had success at Radford and Dayton before coming to Clemson and the Tigers have improved since he has been there (I believe that their 25 wins last year were a school record). This has been achieved at a football school with little basketball tradition and without highly rated recruits. I don't get to see Clemson play often, but, based on my observations, they are very competitive in one of the best basketball conferences in the country (they were in all but three of their games last year), play good team defense and share the ball on offense - all traits of a well coached team.

I also made the point that they were a good passing team and took care of the ball. This comment was made based on my observations but I decided to check with ACC.com to see if I was off base. Clemson was 3rd in the ACC in assists after UNC and the Terps (Duke was 9th). They were also 3rd in the ACC in assist/turnover ratio after UNC and Virginia Tech (Devils were 10th).

gw67

ACCBBallFan
09-13-2007, 10:03 AM
I made the point in an earlier post that I considered coaching to be one of Clemson's strengths this coming year. First, I like Purnell as a coach. He has had success at Radford and Dayton before coming to Clemson and the Tigers have improved since he has been there (I believe that their 25 wins last year were a school record). This has been achieved at a football school with little basketball tradition and without highly rated recruits. I don't get to see Clemson play often, but, based on my observations, they are very competitive in one of the best basketball conferences in the country (they were in all but three of their games last year), play good team defense and share the ball on offense - all traits of a well coached team.

I also made the point that they were a good passing team and took care of the ball. This comment was made based on my observations but I decided to check with ACC.com to see if I was off base. Clemson was 3rd in the ACC in assists after UNC and the Terps (Duke was 9th). They were also 3rd in the ACC in assist/turnover ratio after UNC and Virginia Tech (Devils were 10th).

gw67
GW67 - I know it is not the point you are making, but that last paragraph if it were casue and effect argument would say Purnell is a better coach than coach K or that K is in bottom third in ACC.

I agree with you on Oliver Purnell being one of the better coaches after K and Roy, and that his team gives an all out effort, which a reflection on good coaching.

I am sure it has been a point of emphasis and cannot explain why Clemson is so crappy on FTs other than perhaps it was so over emphasized that they think too much at the line, rather than just reproducing their mechanics in practice.

gw67
09-13-2007, 05:48 PM
ACCBBallFan - There are several factors that go into coaching. A very big one is recruiting. Purnell may be getting all he can out of the kids he recruits to Clemson. I've gotten the sense that it is very difficult to get top youngsters to come to a football school with little basketball tradition. It appears that his players are a mix of athletes (Mays, Perry) and some skill players (Booker, Hammond, Rivers). That generally will only take you so far against the likes of Duke, UNC, Georgia Tech and Maryland although other football schools such as BC, Virginia Tech and West Virginia sometimes put together good seasons. Like other top ACC coaches at football schools, Skinner and Greenburg, I expect that Purnell will generally field competitive teams at Clemson.

I think that you can coach effort and teamwork but, IMO, you recruit shooting. Some improvement in shooting technique, particularly from the foul line, can be coached but, in general, there is not enough time to work at these individual skills during team practice and it is up to the players to get better. Clemson will improve its' free throw shooting when they recruit better shooters and the players place an emphasis on this skill.

gw67

Wander
09-13-2007, 06:41 PM
I also made the point that they were a good passing team and took care of the ball. This comment was made based on my observations but I decided to check with ACC.com to see if I was off base. Clemson was 3rd in the ACC in assists after UNC and the Terps (Duke was 9th). They were also 3rd in the ACC in assist/turnover ratio after UNC and Virginia Tech (Devils were 10th).


Better to use stats like offensive efficiency and turnover percentage. Clemson was just in the top 50 in the country in offense efficiency - not bad, not spectacular. They were tied for 10th in the ACC.

Look, there's no single stat for coaching. On the one hand, Clemson has improved under Purnell's watch, which is a sign of good coaching. On the other side, the late season collapse was terrible, and the team didn't reach its potential, which is a sign of bad coaching (I'm not pulling a double standard here, either - K did a poor coaching job last year). And it's one thing to be below average at free throw shooting, it's another to be the single worst team out of over 300 at scoring from the line, behind the likes of Savannah State, Maryland Eastern Shore, Prairie View A&M, and the New Jersey Institute of Technology.

Overall, I think Purnell is probably an average ACC coach. I wouldn't call coaching a strength or a weakness of Clemson.

gw67
09-14-2007, 08:15 AM
Wander - I respect your opinion and we just differ in these cases. For the record, I didn't state that they were a "great" or "spectacular" passing team nor did I address offensive efficiency, I stated that they were a good passing team last year. I stand by my observations.

I don't agree with you that they didn't reach their potential last year. IMO, they went about as far as they could with their talent and, as I recall, they played Air Force and West Virginia tough to end the season.

The issue of coaching is very subjective. I don't see them play very much but in the games I've watched, Purnell gets his team ready to play and they play together. One wonders if high profile coaches would do any better under the same circumstances. For my money, his coaching is a team strength.

gw67

ACCBBallFan
09-14-2007, 11:05 AM
Wander - I respect your opinion and we just differ in these cases. For the record, I didn't state that they were a "great" or "spectacular" passing team nor did I address offensive efficiency, I stated that they were a good passing team last year. I stand by my observations.

I don't agree with you that they didn't reach their potential last year. IMO, they went about as far as they could with their talent and, as I recall, they played Air Force and West Virginia tough to end the season.

The issue of coaching is very subjective. I don't see them play very much but in the games I've watched, Purnell gets his team ready to play and they play together. One wonders if high profile coaches would do any better under the same circumstances. For my money, his coaching is a team strength.

gw67

I agree, GW67. After K, Roy and Gary, not sure who else in ACC I would take over Purnell. Hewitt has been a bit of a disappointment, too early to tell on Sidney Lowe who was impressive last year. I expect these six coaches finish in top 6 of ACC this year, but that may be more a function of player talent than coaching per se which does play a role in the former.

I like Dave Leitao but some feel he is on hot seat. Al Skinner is solid. Seth Greenberg seems pretty good. Not very impressed with Haith or Hamilton and too early to tell on Skip's successor Dino Gaudio

So not sure who I would take over Purnell as fourth best ACC coach, though he also does not jump way ahead of most of these other coaches. either.

I definitely do not view Oliver Purnell as a liability.

Wander
09-14-2007, 11:12 AM
So not sure who I would take over Purnell as fourth best ACC coach, though he also does not jump way ahead of most of these other coaches. either.


Al Skinner for sure. After that, it gets too subjective, and nobody really jumps out ahead of the pack. Personally, I'd take Greenberg and Lowe before Purnell, but it's certainly arguable.