cspan37421
03-24-2008, 08:52 AM
Does anyone else have the impression that this team, down the stretch, didn't communicate that well with each other? In particular (and I don't have thorough data, just impressions), it seemed that on-court team huddles were rather few, particularly down the stretch. If you remember or watch videos of the Hurley/Laettner years, these guys would huddle and talk to each other after nearly any foul. I didn't notice that a lot with this team. Perhaps I wasn't looking for it though.
This thought came to me as I was recalling the NCSU game in which we played poorly for 32 minutes, then just well enough for 8 to win. I recall this quote from the AP article:
"He kind of let us decide what we were going to do with the game," guard Jon Scheyer said, "because for a lot of it, we weren't doing the things that (the coaches) told us to do."
I have to admit, when I read that I wondered how in the world our guys weren't following what the coaches were telling them to do. I thought, I can't believe these guys are unteachable!? But that's what it sounded like. Of course it could have meant that they weren't accomplishing what the staff wanted, despite effort. I wasn't sure, but it didn't sound normal.
Later in the article, Coach K seemed to clarify, or come to the rescue, if you view it that way:
"For a couple of late timeouts, I let anyone who would actually want to talk — and say something that somebody would listen to — run the huddle," Krzyzewski said. "Teams become really good when they talk to each other...."
Well, again, you can interpret that different ways. Were they not listening to Coach K and the staff? Not listening to each other? Not talking to each other? I guess it is open for interpretation. What do you all think?
I also felt that Coach K's recent and repeated description of them playing "winning basketball" despite the losses to Clemson and WVU, and the squeaker vs. Belmont (keep in mind their RPI/ranking) seemed awfully generous of him.
I guess these are two incongruities to me. On the one hand, can it really be that the team didn't take to heart the coaching staff's entreaties? If not, did they merely not communicate well with each other? Or is that even accurate?
Secondly, the notion that 8 McD All-Americans (sic?) + others are playing winning basketball in the last 3 games against not-great competition ... does that pass the smell test?
I am very proud of our guys for improving so much over last year (5.5 games), despite tremendous youth (and unlike some, I don't dismiss it as a factor). If we can keep guys from leaving early, keep them together, I have confidence they'll learn the system better and dominate even in the post-season. But the communication thing keeps nagging at my curiosity.
This thought came to me as I was recalling the NCSU game in which we played poorly for 32 minutes, then just well enough for 8 to win. I recall this quote from the AP article:
"He kind of let us decide what we were going to do with the game," guard Jon Scheyer said, "because for a lot of it, we weren't doing the things that (the coaches) told us to do."
I have to admit, when I read that I wondered how in the world our guys weren't following what the coaches were telling them to do. I thought, I can't believe these guys are unteachable!? But that's what it sounded like. Of course it could have meant that they weren't accomplishing what the staff wanted, despite effort. I wasn't sure, but it didn't sound normal.
Later in the article, Coach K seemed to clarify, or come to the rescue, if you view it that way:
"For a couple of late timeouts, I let anyone who would actually want to talk — and say something that somebody would listen to — run the huddle," Krzyzewski said. "Teams become really good when they talk to each other...."
Well, again, you can interpret that different ways. Were they not listening to Coach K and the staff? Not listening to each other? Not talking to each other? I guess it is open for interpretation. What do you all think?
I also felt that Coach K's recent and repeated description of them playing "winning basketball" despite the losses to Clemson and WVU, and the squeaker vs. Belmont (keep in mind their RPI/ranking) seemed awfully generous of him.
I guess these are two incongruities to me. On the one hand, can it really be that the team didn't take to heart the coaching staff's entreaties? If not, did they merely not communicate well with each other? Or is that even accurate?
Secondly, the notion that 8 McD All-Americans (sic?) + others are playing winning basketball in the last 3 games against not-great competition ... does that pass the smell test?
I am very proud of our guys for improving so much over last year (5.5 games), despite tremendous youth (and unlike some, I don't dismiss it as a factor). If we can keep guys from leaving early, keep them together, I have confidence they'll learn the system better and dominate even in the post-season. But the communication thing keeps nagging at my curiosity.