Sr. Terps Analyst
Posted 27 January 2014 - 11:19 AM
BSL: http://baltimorespor...iters-analysts/
This past week, I was able to interview Jeff Ermann, Chris Garman, Pete Volk, and Michael Willis about the state of both the Maryland men's basketball team and the football team. Again, I thank each of them for their contributions to what turned out to be a great article.
Owner
Posted 27 January 2014 - 12:21 PM
Would like to see a lot of feedback here.
Like Zack, I'd also like to extend thanks to Jeff, Chris, Pete, and Michael. I've enjoyed hearing the thoughts of each of them on BSL Radio, and like seeing their extended thoughts in this Q&A.
HOF
Posted 27 January 2014 - 12:59 PM
I think they all make good points as to what's gone wrong with this Terps season. There really is so much to point to.
Really strongly critical stuff from Volk about Smotrycz. I agree that he's played very poorly recently, and defensively he's an absolute zero (have said that from the first time I saw him this season). I'd be very surprised if any team in the country has a weaker defensive frontcourt than we do with Mitchell, Cleare, and Smotrycz. And as much as that group lacks defensively, it also lacks offensively. Mitchell is a very effective offensive rebounded and Evan is a solid shooter, but nothing else about these guys is remotely encouraging.
I'd have absolutely no problem if everyone on this team who's over 6' 5" left aside from Layman. I think we could find better JuCo and transfer players, yet alone uncommitted recruits, jumping into the game late than Cleare, Mitchell, and the rest of our bigs provide. The PG play was supposed to be the big problem this year, and it's been a problem area, but the weakest link on this team is certainly the interior play. And that's not even really a link, that's like 1/2 the chain.
HOF
Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:53 PM
Really good article. I think a lot of the problems they point out are obvious. Their big men are all flawed. Smotrycz is a real disappointment. I actually think having him and Jake on the court at the same time, hurts Jake. Smot dribbles way too much. Defensively they are a mess. It was embarassing to see patterson from Pitt go down the middle for easy layups like he did on Saturday.
Unless something amazing happens this season is gone. I would like to see Turgeon use Dodd at the 5 and Peters at the point, a lot to see if they can develop.
I really do not like how Turgeon coaches a game. He lets his emotions hamper the team. He also does not make adjustments. Saturday's game screamed for the Terps to play zone. Pitt is a poor 3 point shooting team and with the fouls piling up, he should have at least tried some form of zone.
I think he has another year or two but just a guess, I think he is as frustrated with his team as many of us Terp fans are. I have said it before. I miss Gary's ability to coach in game.
HOF
Posted 27 January 2014 - 03:32 PM
Great answers and discussion for all. Really well done on both sides.
Just to add some content, Garman brings up the point several times that I brought up before BB conference play last year, that Turgeon really uses too much depth and as such no one gets into a rhythm. I think that continues to be one (of many) problems with the BB team this year. In crunch time late in the game, who do you put on the floor if you're MD? I honestly have no idea, and I don't think he does either. Depth is great, but you need to have your set line-up that you can count on, and MD doesn't have that right now.
Banned
Posted 27 January 2014 - 03:58 PM
My biggest problem with Turge really isn't pure Xs ans Os. Its roster construction and not defining roles.
Im as critical as anyone on Gary, and in particular his recruiting, but he did those two things well. Now he didn't always have a talented enough PG, but more often than not he had a true PG on the team. Take someone like Hayes. A borderline ACC player his first few years. Struggled with the athleticism to be a top flight ACC PG but he was a PG. He had that mentality. It was his position and he knew his role.
He usually had a big man who could defend the rim. He ran the flex, he knew the type of players he needed to run the flex and even if it wasn't the players best fit he molded players into fitting the roles he wanted them to fit. Some people always criticized Gary for being to rigid in that regard, but your seeing the opposite effect if you give too many players too much freedom and don't define roles.
Turge has to do a better job of getting versatility in the roster and then defining the roles of the players. There is no way a guy like Faust should be shooting as much as he shoots. Gary would have reeled him in by now and gave him his role and place within the system.
HOF
Posted 27 January 2014 - 06:07 PM
I agree with your overall point, but Hayes is an odd example to use considering he played the 2 much more during his final 2 years while Vasquez played the point.
Im as critical as anyone on Gary, and in particular his recruiting, but he did those two things well. Now he didn't always have a talented enough PG, but more often than not he had a true PG on the team. Take someone like Hayes. A borderline ACC player his first few years. Struggled with the athleticism to be a top flight ACC PG but he was a PG. He had that mentality. It was his position and he knew his role.
HOF
Posted 27 January 2014 - 07:41 PM
Great answers and discussion for all. Really well done on both sides.
Just to add some content, Garman brings up the point several times that I brought up before BB conference play last year, that Turgeon really uses too much depth and as such no one gets into a rhythm. I think that continues to be one (of many) problems with the BB team this year. In crunch time late in the game, who do you put on the floor if you're MD? I honestly have no idea, and I don't think he does either. Depth is great, but you need to have your set line-up that you can count on, and MD doesn't have that right now.
I disagree that Turgeon is using his depth too much. The thing with this team, is you never know which of the top 6 or so guys may have it on a given night and need to become the guy for that given game. Nobody is consistent, so while one night it may be Allen who takes over, the next it's Layman, and then Wells and then Faust. Sometimes it's nobody.
The big men never really get anything going, so that rotation is pretty much moot. But for all the wing types (including Smotrycz here), he never really has a feel for who's gonna be hot that night, because how could you? So he's gotta get them all in, and in different combinations, to see what might be working that night.
I don't think Turgeon is constantly rotating trying to keep everyone fresh. He's fishing for who is playing well together that game. I think that's the right way to work with this squad. If he just ran with the same 5 and then subbed 2 or 3 guys as needed for rest or foul trouble, I don't think the team would find it's best rotation each night.
Banned
Posted 27 January 2014 - 08:09 PM
Which is why Turg needs to define roles, even if it pisses players off.I disagree that Turgeon is using his depth too much. The thing with this team, is you never know which of the top 6 or so guys may have it on a given night and need to become the guy for that given game. Nobody is consistent, so while one night it may be Allen who takes over, the next it's Layman, and then Wells and then Faust. Sometimes it's nobody.
The big men never really get anything going, so that rotation is pretty much moot. But for all the wing types (including Smotrycz here), he never really has a feel for who's gonna be hot that night, because how could you? So he's gotta get them all in, and in different combinations, to see what might be working that night.
I don't think Turgeon is constantly rotating trying to keep everyone fresh. He's fishing for who is playing well together that game. I think that's the right way to work with this squad. If he just ran with the same 5 and then subbed 2 or 3 guys as needed for rest or foul trouble, I don't think the team would find it's best rotation each night.
HOF
Posted 27 January 2014 - 08:16 PM
Which is why Turg needs to define roles, even if it pisses players off.
BTW.... that doesn't mean you don't feed a hot hand on a particular night, but it means just because Faust goes off for 25 one night he realizes it's not his job to jack up 20 shots the next game trying to replicate it.
My point was I don't think defined roles improves the team, unless it happens to coincide with the exact time that a handful of these guys start playing consistently every game. Maybe it would be the impetus that sparks that cohesion, but I don't see it.
More to the point though, is I don't think any coaching strategies within games really would change things. The coaching that needs to happen is stuff in between games, getting these guys with the program and playing hard and smart every night out. I think that's a long shot, too, and ultimately I'd agree if you say a change for change's sake wouldn't be a bad idea, I just don't think it'll help.
Banned
Posted 27 January 2014 - 08:22 PM
I agree that ultimately it's not going to make a big difference. We're still not a touurny team. Just too many weaknesses. I think it can bring up the overall consistency.My point was I don't think defined roles improves the team, unless it happens to coincide with the exact time that a handful of these guys start playing consistently every game. Maybe it would be the impetus that sparks that cohesion, but I don't see it.
More to the point though, is I don't think any coaching strategies within games really would change things. The coaching that needs to happen is stuff in between games, getting these guys with the program and playing hard and smart every night out. I think that's a long shot, too, and ultimately I'd agree if you say a change for change's sake wouldn't be a bad idea, I just don't think it'll help.
Owner
Banned
Posted 27 January 2014 - 09:51 PM
Who cares.What did you think of the football discussion?
HOF
Posted 27 January 2014 - 09:57 PM
Thought the football discussion was good, just not sure anything was said that hasn't been said before.
I know I've been preaching it for a long time but 2014 is pretty much the year for Edsall. Regardless of how this recruiting class lines up next year's team will be the most talented MD football team since probably the Orange Bowl team in Ralph's first year. I understand that the schedule is difficult, but it really needs to be a competitive year. If they get rolled in the B1G, you have to look at making a move IMO.
You lose quite a bit after next year, and in particular I have no idea what you do at QB at that point. Hills or Rowe probably aren't B1G QBs, and just not sure what to make of Cockerille and Ulmer.
HOF
Posted 27 January 2014 - 10:02 PM
BTW, as a quick aside, I watched the MD/Kansas Final Four game tonight bc I was depressed and wanted to see some good basketball. Goodness, what a team that was.
But anyway, there's a point in the game where MD had just switched to a zone and Boschee had made a quick 3. You see Blake look at Gary real quick and make a "box and one" sign, presumably to have someone cover Boschee. And I just thought, can you envision anyone on the current squad asking a question like that, or thinking enough about what's going on to make an adjustment like that?
Banned
Posted 27 January 2014 - 10:18 PM
HOF
Posted 28 January 2014 - 12:06 AM
My biggest problem with Turge really isn't pure Xs ans Os. Its roster construction and not defining roles.
Im as critical as anyone on Gary, and in particular his recruiting, but he did those two things well. Now he didn't always have a talented enough PG, but more often than not he had a true PG on the team. Take someone like Hayes. A borderline ACC player his first few years. Struggled with the athleticism to be a top flight ACC PG but he was a PG. He had that mentality. It was his position and he knew his role.
He usually had a big man who could defend the rim. He ran the flex, he knew the type of players he needed to run the flex and even if it wasn't the players best fit he molded players into fitting the roles he wanted them to fit. Some people always criticized Gary for being to rigid in that regard, but your seeing the opposite effect if you give too many players too much freedom and don't define roles.
Turge has to do a better job of getting versatility in the roster and then defining the roles of the players. There is no way a guy like Faust should be shooting as much as he shoots. Gary would have reeled him in by now and gave him his role and place within the system.
Great Post...I really think you hit the differences between Gary and Turgeon on the nose. Gary got tired of recruiting but he defined what he wanted in a player and took guys, like Hayes because he saw them fitting.
Gary would have not achieved this recruiting group but he would have Justin Anderson and the PG whose name escapes me that was destined for Maryland and role players to go around them,
Plus Gary was a terrific in game coach which is something I have not seen from Turgeon.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
