I'm working on the midseason basketball update, but in the meantime I thought I would comment on last night's game.
Ugly game from Clemson against, statistically speaking, arguably the worst opponent the team has faced this season. I think the tendency will be to chalk this up as the result of a rusty team looking ahead to an ACC opener against the hated Duke Blue Devils. (From the sportswriter's perspective, the storyline practically writes itself.) Clearly, it was a near-disastrous game where the Tigers played lax defense until the final minutes and failed to hit any free throws down the stretch while SC State seemed to get just about every bounce, deflection, and borderline call to go there way. Clemson is really, really lucky this didn't end up in the "bad loss" column for the selection committee to see come March. (It also raises the question as to when "near-bad losses" will start to enter the selection criteria...)
The most interesting part of the game for me, however, was Purnell's willingness to stick with a lot of freshmen on the floor for the first 10-12 minutes of the second half, even after it became clear that SC State was chipping away at the lead and primed to make a run. As we've stated before on the blog, for Clemson to really contend in the ACC this season they need at least one or two of the freshmen to get comfortable in the system and really start contributing, particularly on the offensive end. I'm wondering if the coaching staff isn't a little bit exasperated at this point. Here is the most highly-touted recruiting class in years and years at Clemson and with the possible exception of Devin Booker, we've yet to see anyone flash even the promise of becoming a star at Clemson. My sense was today Purnell was willing to risk a close(r) game in order to give Johnson and Jennings every opportunity to succeed in a sort of sink-or-swim fashion (not giving them any veteran support). Unfortunately, the strategy didn't seem to help matters and it nearly ended up costing Clemson in the win column.
So what gives? Is this a case of 1) over-hyped talent, 2) a failure on the coaching staff's part to successfully integrate new talent into the system, or 3) is everything going to be fine and we just need to accept that the learning curve is really steep for these players? If you've been following the blog, I've been more or less advocating #3 while cautioning against the possibility that #2 becomes something of a reality. Now that the ACC preseason is over, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm still leaning towards #3, but #2 is becoming more and more of a possibility. Purnell may have made a critical error by awarding scholarships to the best available talent; talent which may or may not ever really "fit" into his brand of basketball. Let's be brutally honest: Jennings and Johnson have looked more or less lost offensively--flat-footed and standing around most of the time. They've been even worse on defense, barely contributing to the press and even struggling to play solid defense in the half-court. Hill has, at least, shown flashes of being a potential contributor on defense, but again hasn't shown anything on offense. I really hope this is setting off alarm after alarm in every meeting Purnell holds with the other coaches and that this is a constant topic of discussion, because the team's prospects for the season (to say nothing of the ceiling of success for the program in the future) depend on integration of superior offensive talent.
To be clear, everything is not lost. One observation that favors #3 over #2 is that Jennings and Johnson are really being asked to do a lot all at once. This isn't a case similar to when, for example, Oglesby was brought in. When he first joined the team his primary responsibility was to get open on the offensive end and drain threes. He worked on other aspects of his game as time went on, without the pressure of being a force on defense by the time game #15 of his collegiate career came around. Another example is Trevor Booker, who was expected to provide a post presence underneath on offense while blocking a few shots on defense in his first year, while gradually building the other parts of his game. This could be an easy way for the coaches to assist Jennings, Johnson, and Hill. Give them some roles to focus on in individual games--I get the feeling these guys are just being asked to do too much at once. With a little focus they might be able to ground themselves a little better.
Unfortunately, the counter-argument to the preceding paragraph is that these freshmen are supposed to be tremendous athletes. The coaching staff could be perfectly justified in setting high expectations for their adjustment into the Clemson system. This also raises the discomforting but ultimately unavoidable notion that once you start considering #2, you have to also consider #1.
I don't have the answers, but I felt like throwing this out. The result of all this is that we may need to temper our expectations for the season. From my vantage point, 10 ACC wins is looking more and more like a goal to be achieved rather than a given. I said in the season preview that Clemson needed at least one of the four freshmen to emerge in the ACC preseason. As it turns out, I was wrong. We really need one of the three non-Booker freshmen to emerge, because Devin Booker's role is filled by Trevor. Of course it's great that Devin looks is able to come in and spell Trevor for a few minutes at a time without a significant drop-off on the offensive end, but the Tigers need someone else to provide us with an upgrade in a slot that doesn't already feature our best position player. The great news for Clemson fans, though, is Devin Booker looks like the real deal, which should relieve concerns about lack of an inside presence next season.
No comments:
Post a Comment