Expectations
Unlike last year, I think the high expectations surrounding the program now are actually warranted. Last year we didn't have a lot of room for growth over the previous season because the players getting the bulk of the playing time, with the exception of Stitt and possibly Oglesby, didn't have a lot of individual developmental upside and the guys we brought in, while solid recruits, weren't going to contribute immediately. As it turned out, Booker improved his game quite a bit, while Oglesby and Rivers took smallish steps backward, which ended up more or less evening out.
This year is different, though. On paper, we now have the talent (and the talented depth) to match up with anyone in the non-UNC ACC--something that Clemson hasn't been able boast since really the Cliff Ellis days. More importantly, the team has a lot of upside in the form of developing individual talent. So basically, unlike the last several years, this Clemson team can be expected to actually get better as the season progresses; not to come out and play as well in game one as they would in the last game.
Influx of talent
Another piece of good news is with the influx of new players, it looks like we will overcome some of the roster construction flaws that were exploited by opposing ACC coaches, leading to the painfully slow finish. Hopefully we now we have the versatile pieces that will allow Clemson to inflict matchup headaches on other teams in the ACC.
The one weakness that jumps out about Clemson right now is the lack of in-game experience with their younger talent. Thanks to the 76 classic, though, we should get an early idea of how long some of the younger players are going to need before we can expect solid, consistent contribution.
Outstanding personnel issues
I count about four major personnel issues that need to be sorted in the "pre-season" (i.e., before the ACC season begins):
1) Barring some remarkable and unexpected off-season development from Stitt, Andre Young will probably displace him as the starting point guard. This is admittedly based on a smaller sample size, but from my vantage point in every phase of the game except one, Young is the better choice. He's a better defender (although Stitt has made strides here), better passer, better manager, commits fewer turnovers, and he's a better perimeter shooter. The one area where Stitt excels is in creating room off the dribble and driving to the hoop, but even his finishing could use some work. I think we could see Stitt reduced to a role where he mainly comes off the bench when we really need someone to slash to the hoop and generate some scoring opportunities around the rim.
2) Tanner Smith is going to get playing time, and it should be with the intent of letting him find the three-point stroke he allegedly had in high school.
3) Related to #2, I imagine Purnell and staff will be looking for someone in the backcourt to emerge as a legitimate 3-point shooting threat alongside Young. Young shot the long ball last season to the tune of 39.0% (surprised? he only took 77 shots but actually had a better percentage than Oglesby's 38.8%) and we know Booker and Potter will take their threes, but it would be nice to have one of either Smith or Johnson develop into a weapon from long-range.
4) Figuring out who amongst the rookies is ready to contribute now, who might be ready to contribute by the time the ACC season starts, and who needs a smaller role until next year.
Coaching strategy
Strategically, Purnell has some issues to address. I went over some of this in last year's recap, but I'll briefly summarize below. First, Purnell has always fielded superior defensive teams at Clemson that have ranked in the top twenty in the nation--until last year. Take a look at the chart below:
When we look at component defensive measures, the problem appears to stem primarily from 3-point defense:
(As always, stats care of kenpom.)
A lot of this related to how teams started attacking the press. Opposing coaches began to realize that Clemson excels not not just in causing turnovers with the press, but also with pursuing plays right to the basket; often getting blocks at the right at the rim on a player who thinks he has broken the press. Towards the end of the season, we saw teams opt for the pull-up open three pointer. An open three is, after all, a pretty high percentage shot (at least a good risk-reward shot) and also there's an increased chance for the long rebound. In short, Clemson appeared to give up a lot of threes in transition over the last 10 games in the season. Adjusting the full-court defense, or at least some aspect of it, has to be a priority for Purnell and his staff going into the season.
Concerns on defense dovetail with a couple of other related issues: 1) with the youth on the team, how much time will they require to adjust into Purnell's exacting and demanding system? And 2) how well do players like Jennings and Johnson, recruited in part as outstanding offensive skill players, accept the importance of defense in the Clemson gameplan? Remember, this is not just the most raw talent on a team to tip-off in Clemson in several years, its also the most talented group of players that Purnell has ever coached.
Summary
Lots of questions, but step back a second and realize that these are the kind of questions any program in the nation would be happy to be asking itself right now. Should be a lot of fun to watch for the answers. To be clear, I don't expect Clemson to put up a perfect record before the start of the ACC season (as has become customary) for two reasons: 1) with the 76 Classic, the competition should be a lot tougher than we've seen in years past, and 2) I expect the young players to get a lot of minutes. Young players means mistakes will be made, leading to turnovers, leading to missed scoring opportunities, leading to entries in the loss column. But the flip side is Clemson has the potential to get significantly better as the season rolls along and individual talents develop and learn to mesh their particular skills with the Purnell's system.
No comments:
Post a Comment