[Promoted from the FanPosts.  Great stuff in here -- ed.]

I just took a look at the last six minutes or so of yesterday's game against UNC, and it was like a Clint Eastwood movie:  we had the Good, Bad, and Ugly side of this team.

First, the Good:  We won, and our two freshman guards went 7-8 from the free throw line in the last two and a half minutes, Bledsoe's miss on the second of a 1+1 being the only miss.  Also, we kept fighting for rebounds and got several good calls.  Wall's strip/steal was also brilliant as was his ball-handling for the most part.

Now, the Bad: On successive trips down the floor, Wall tried to take over the game, resulting in two turnovers.  First was an ill-advised shot in the lane that got blocked, resulting in a UNC FG.  The second was the charge, also in the lane.  To be fair, he did it on the third trip, too, and got a tripping foul called which resulted in free throws for us.  Also bad was the possession in which we missed two consecutive 3-pointers by Miller and Bledsoe.  Despite the nice percentage we're shooting from beyond the arc, this was one of our worries at the beginning of the year, and, while both were open, squared-up shots, both were missed. 

Still in the Bad category, we got exactly one field goal in the last five minutes (Bledsoe's in-bounds reverse layup), and that won't cut it.  And we were darned lucky that Bledsoe's little ill-advised jump-hook in the lane was knocked out by a Tarheel.

And the Ugly: Our big players were non-existent on offense.  For whatever reason, Patterson seldom touched the ball in crunch time, and when he did, it was way out on the floor.  We depended entirely on our guards and were lucky they got it done.  We also threw the ball around like we didn't want it, Bledsoe's baseline drive-kickout over Wall's head being the ugliest.  Where were the adjustments when UNC was coming back?  Coach Rupp used to say that the coaches play the first three minutes of the second half.  Based on that, I'm not sure Ol' Roy didn't beat Coach Cal a little yesterday.

All in all, I'm incredibly glad to get the win.  It makes 1996, puts us five ahead of UNC, and resulted in THE CALL being made from my Tarheel son to me instead of from me to him. 

But despite all the encouraging signs, I'm still not comfortable with this team.  We didn't react well either to Wall's absence or to UNC's picking up the defensive pressure in the second half.  We took our foot off their throats when we had them down.  Many of these issues are signs of immaturity, so I hope we outgrow them.  But I'm still not comfortable.

We've all been complaining about how many turnovers this year's edition of the Cats have had.  But has it really been bad?  And has it been worse than most years?  I decided to take a look at Jon Scott's site to gather a little data.

Continue reading this post »

In the aftermath of the UK-UL game, I find myself wondering why it is that players today get so damned specialized?  Is it because they have it drilled into them (not necessarily by their coaches) that they do a certain thing well and someone else does something else well, and never the twain shall meet?  I just don't know.

Here's what I saw today:

-Good college players who can't, or won't, pull up and shoot a mid-range jump shot.  Instead, they drive into traffic, allowing the defense to collapse and double/triple team them, and then put up a "leaner".  Hansbrough can do that leaner, but he shoots from above his head, not waist level.  Our guys don't know how to do that.

-An outstanding outside shooting guard who can't, or won't, help bring the ball down the court.  Is there any doubt that Meeks is faster than Porter?  Can he not dribble the ball at all?  While Porter played an outstanding game today, with the exception of not looking to shoot enough, I was holding my breath as he was working one-on-one with a guy who was quicker than he was.

-A "point" guard who made two nice threes (OK, one was a heave), but repeatedly passed up open shots from right on the arc.  Wasn't Mike recruited as a shooter?  Why won't he look to shoot?

-Perry Stevenson begging with confidence for the ball, then making the three.  Then, he made a decent little jumper from the lane, almost apologetically.  Finally, when left completely open from the free throw line, he looked everywhere and finally, as a last resort, put up a hesitant shot that missed.  The kid can shoot--why isn't he encouraged to shoot more? 

-Only one good, solid screen by UK.  Naturally enough, it was by our MAN among boys, Patrick Patterson, on the left side to free Meeks for a three.  That pick should be shown about 30 times each practice.  Most other attempted picks were half-hearted affairs that resulted in exactly no advantage.  The pick and roll is still good basic basketball.  Why won't players use it?

I guess that last thought is my real problem.  Today's players are indisputably quicker, faster, and better athletes than they were several years ago, but many of them simply don't possess enough of the basic skills to provide the versatility that gives opponents fits.  As much as I love Perry Stevenson and his great effort level, that baseline drive/charge epitomizes what drives me nuts.  Where was the pull-up jumper when he got open?  Same goes for Meeks on the fake/high-step/jumpstop in traffic that he got blocked late in the game.  His first dribble got him open, with two defenders adjusting.  Why not just pull up for the jumper?

Is there a rule that "point" guards can't shoot?  That "shooting" guards can't dribble?  That good defending forwards can't shoot the J?  That nobody can set picks?  There must be, because I just don't see that kind of versatility on our team.  And it breaks my heart, 'cause while they're getting better, they COULD be GOOD.