Noel Johnson's Dad Leaves Clemson

Well this bites. First I am a fan of Noel Johnson as a basketball player (well as a player on this particular Clemson team). He couldn't play a lick of D or penetrate that well but he wasn't named Tanner and he has the height and ability to shoot the ball.

He didn't start the season and looked awful on the court until the past couple of games when he went from that guy on your pick up team who takes all the shots and thinks he's the man (but you were probably better off without him) to lukewarm milk. Donte Hill and now Sing Noel are gone. 9 players remain. With Booker and Grant not being able to stay on the floor we are going to be seeing a lot more Tanner, Jennings, and the frosh Stanton as well as *gasp* Narcisse and Bobo. I would gladly have TO (Terrance, Terrance) back, my goodness.

My goodness. So exploring all of our options I have a solution. DMac...He plays his senior year for the bball team and he lights it up. Won't happen because he will be trying to get ready for the draft. But it would be awesome...

Nuke--not happening and we really need wings not point guards anyway. Vic Beasley is an interesting option that could be explored.

We should also look into one of those early enrollment things--didn't Dawkins do that for Duke?? Get a kid after January? It would at least help with practice, redshirt and learn the system. We will certainly be needing a ton of help next year.

I think 8-8 in the ACC is looking more and more like a mountain to climb than an achievable goal. Tanner, please learn to shoot a 3. Jennings, rebound like a man (and shoot 3's). Booker--relearn those post moves you showed last year then forgot because Purnell put regression juice in all his new players diets. Do you remember how as a Freshman Stitt was like an 80% FT shooter?? Oh and everyone learn the motion offense.

Moving Right Along: Post game Virginia

This was a great win for us. We easily handled a much improved Virginia Cavaliers team and beat them by a large margin--no playing down to our competition. I like Bennett as a coach and think Virginia will be a formidable foe in the near future, they were just gassed for this game and didn't expect TBooker and JGrant to have 14 and 18 points respectively. We dominated inside and got some great minutes from Milton Jennings (thank you!!). Purnell is starting to use the freshman more and more which really bodes well for next season, Noel Johnson continues to struggle however which is disappointing. I was also really disappointed with some bonehead turnovers in this game, many of which involved Tanner and some from Stitt. Its those unforced turnovers that kill us against better teams.

If our inside guys can keep playing at a high level, Booker had some sweet pure post moves today, and we knock down 35% from three point range--we can hang with anyone in the country. I think that the week long break was really helpful--we had fresher legs and we need it for these upcoming road games. Looking back at our predictions early on--9-7 is still within our grasp as well as making it to the tourney and winning at least one game. That would be an improvement from last year. What we really need is to peak at the right time--that means the time to finally gel as a team has come. Milt is showing life, the inside game is solid, we play pretty good D, the FT shooting has improved--all key things to continue on the road. What we need to see a little more improvement on to push us into that upper echelon is decreased turnovers, better 3pt shooting, and toughness on the road.

Right now I think we can go 9-7, win one game in the ACC and NCAA tournaments. Lets make it happen Tigers!!

VT at the Half: The Delaney Flop Show

What a mixed bag at the half. First, Malcolm Delaney is like Reggie Miller. No FG's in the first half but 14-16 from the FT line. They are giving him every single little tick or tack foul. Which would be fine but Stitt gets hacked going to the basket and nothing, or breaking the double team and nothing. We played well defensively in the first ten minutes, really well in fact, and I liked what a few of our bench players did when they came in. We got a little tired but were blocking a ton of shots in the beginning--that's a motivated Booker. Jennings is having his best game to date. Young needs to knock down a three. Tanner made one and then clanked a couple, and Potter made his first and then took some poor shots.

When we commit to passing the ball to Booker, good things happen(except when he goes to the line). I think it helps us when they double team him. We are on the road and should be winning so it is disappointing to be down by 2 but every time Delaney goes to the line its 2 free ones. Take notes tigers, Jennings, Stitt--you can't miss the front end of the one and one. Stitt looks ok but not 100% on defense I would like to see him not re-injure himself and set himself back but this is a critical game to win, on the road for Selection Sunday. We should let more students in too!! So much better crowd that way...

Boston College Recap I

I'm going to do these recaps as often as possible during the ACC season, similar to what I was doing last year...

The first two ACC games for Clemson do a pretty good job of sketching out the basic structure of the conference this year: we were beaten soundly by a Duke team that appears to be alone at the top of the league and then our team, a leader amongst a glut of talented but flawed teams in the middle of the league, handled BC, which along with Virginia and possibly NC State bring up the rear of the league. Now, I know the GT just knocked off Duke at home, but I would put them with Clemson at the top of the middle pack; a great game at home for these teams will be enough to at least hang with Duke. (Clemson has the same shot at an upset in a couple of weeks). To the chart:

College Basketball

(Chart from Statsheet. I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)

Not much to say about this game, as it went more or less how I envisioned it (hey, there's a first time for everything...). The biggest surprise was probably that the Tigers only managed to "force" only 14 turnovers but still cruised. BC, one of the worst stealing teams in the nation, actually managed to ring up 9 steals to our 8. We countered this somewhat by blocking 8 shots (nice showing by Booker with 4). Most pleasant surprise of the game? Probably the play of Noel Johnson. Sure, he turned the ball over 3 times but he also was responsible for 3 steals, found himself a few rebounds, and generally looked pretty confident with his positioning on the court. Also a decent looking game for Jennings. Here's why I'm pleasantly surprised: if these guys can't give quality minutes against BC, then their seasons are pretty much finished.

Onwards to UNC on Wednesday. This is probably the most intriguing match-up of the season, because I have absolutely no idea what to expect. Clemson's made some adjustments should end up countering how Roy Williams' has been playing us the last couple of years, but I'm getting ahead of myself...that's for the next post.

Duke Recap I

I'm going to do these recaps as often as possible during the ACC season, similar to what I was doing last year...

Duke 74, Clemson 53

College Basketball

(Chart from Statsheet. I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)

It was a disappointing, if not entirely unexpected result. The game wasn't really completely out of reach until the last three minutes, but I felt like the game was out of reach after Duke used a 6-0 run to push the lead to 61-44 with about 6:00 minutes left. That came after the final time Clemson threatened to cut the lead to single digits at 55-44 but couldn't take advantage of their chances.

Quick bullet points:

• The first half was an abject disaster on offense. I give Duke credit for playing some aggressive defense and really keeping us from getting good passing lanes in the halfcourt. But Clemson didn't help it's cause at all with poor spacing, poor ball-handling, poor decision-making around the basket, flat-shooting, bad bounces, and just about anything else they could possibly have screwed up. When you score 12 points in a half, I don't care how good the opposing defense is, you've done just about everything wrong.
• I give credit to the team for coming to life in the second half. Better execution in the halfcourt pushed up above 50 for the game. You can argue that Duke let up on defense, but I doubt they could have sustained the same pace for the entire game anyway.
• The offense found success against a tall team, which is encouraging. But even in the second half Clemson was plagued by poor-decision making and poor ball handling. Too many drives right into waiting Duke players, too many forced passes leading to turnovers.
• Only problem with the second half offensive output: the freshmen, aside from Devin Booker, were conspicuously absent despite foul trouble for Potter and Young. A pretty good indication of how Purnell feels about the play from Jennings, Johnson, and Hill, who all looked utterly lost in the first half and hurt the team with exceptionally bad shot selection and turnovers. On the other hand, Cameron Indoor is a pretty difficult place to expect a freshman to play his first conference game. Could spell trouble later in the season though if Purnell is forced to rotate through essentially seven guys: Smith, Young, Stitt, Potter, Grant, and the Bookers.
• The good news is I thought the defense did a good job throughout. They minimized the play of the Plumlee's underneath and made Duke beat them around the perimeter. Of course, with the improved play of Nolan Smith in addition to Scheyer and Singler they are perfectly capable of doing this, but I think it wasn't a bad strategy going in.
• We ended up losing by 20, but we essentially played them to a draw in the second half. I think this still gives us hope of pulling the upset in the friendlier confines of Littlejohn later in the month. Hopefully Johnson or Jennings start earning some playing time by then.

Tough way to start the ACC season. We get Boston College in the home opener this Saturday, though, so we shouldn't have to wait too long for our first ACC win.

S.C. State and playing the freshmen

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.

Western Carolina Catamount Reaction: Booker Brother Bookends??

Another good performance overall, but being the critic I am and looking towards ACC play lets breakdown a few things. We are still really sloppy with the ball. Stitt had eight assists tonight but he turns it over so much. They ran a 1-4 offense set which allowed them to get some open looks. We did an alright rotating, which we are doing a lot better in--basically because the freshman have learned what to do. But I absolutely hate the Stitt, Potter, Young, Smith, Grant line-up because they cant rebound. Potter and Tanner cant rebound like forwards and Grant has always had trouble rebounding strong, he is adequate but needs Booker. Whats worse is the 16-32 FT shooting, which is very troubling. OP has always said that they need to just recruit better FT shooters and we give him a pass. Now he has all his kids and we are regressing, something needs to be done--its becoming an area of concern. Booker has regressed in a major way, 8-17 just dont cut it.

Booker looked more comfortable in the paint tonight, looking like the more dominant force he was at the end of last year. I think it was the intl play and talk of the draft that had him trying to look more like an NBA 3 than a college basketball monster at the 4 or 5. We forget that Booker played center his freshman and sophomore season almost exclusively. Ok Booker had a monster game but Devin Booker continues to impress me. He makes it so easy for guards to pass it in to him, he has been schooled on how to set himself for the entry pass and the guards are learning how to throw it in--well Potter, Stitt and sometimes Smith still need to improve but Booker Jr. is going to be big off the bench and keeps improving his defense. Right now I am calling it--the Booker Brother Bookends! Or something like that, its trademarked...any reporter must now reference this blog or your a bad journalist...haha. Bookend Bookers may be better(a play on the Bamberg bookends??). Anyway, its clear the brothers feed off of each other and I think Devin pushes TBook to play more aggressive and flashy. Lots of sweet flushes when the two were in together tonight--think they made Sportscenter...


Jennings also provided a nice spark off the bench and was really active--getting some rebounds, put backs and energy. Hopefully now he can step back and let his offense come to him some more.

So rebounding and turnovers were the big problems. Our press looked a little crisper too, Booker is really quite good at the point--that is where the press is most poignant. Noel Johnson took a small step backwards though, I'm not a fan of Potter who went 1-5. Johnson only took one shot. Lastly for all you Narcisse fans--tonight was a perfect example why he shouldnt play more than the other freshman. He comes in and gives you energy, but its risky. He turns it over way too much to be a regular offensive substitution. You cant have your prime bench players coming in and screwing up the flow of the offense. Put him in for a defensive or offensive spark that is limited to ten minutes a game as he learns how to better manage himself within the flow of the offense. Like I've said before, it can come but his ceiling is so much lower than a Jennings, Devin Booker, or even Donte Hill I think going forward. I thought Hill showed us something last game and was disappointed not to see him tonight. Bobo gain some weight! If he had any kind of big man presence he would be so dangerous...maybe next year...

Nice win Tigers, we get a week break and then a tune up for Duke with SC State which is nice. I really want us to take it to a highly ranked but suspect Duke team. Would be a nice upset that vaults us in the top 15 at least...

On Loving/Hating Tanner Smith

First off this post is not going to be popular--I know that, but I think its a good debate to have so here it is. I have a love/hate relationship with Tanner. On the message boards and in the blogs there is a general love that follows Mr. Smith. Now I dont think he is a bad player, I'm just not sold yet, and its a debate that is pivotal to the complexion, the demeanor that the team develops going forward.

So Smith is loved because:

• he hustles and gets to those loose balls
• he is the great white hype
• he is a team leader and team player
• Hitting above 80% from FT line, getting a lot of steals
  
• he is a go-to guy on offense
  

Wait what? He is a go to guy on offense? A compliment to Booker right? Here is where I have a problem--I love Tanner as a glue guy, the hustle guy that makes everything work--not as a go to guy. I also dont mind if he is a guy who helps fill in for Oglesby by hitting three point shots but that hasnt been working out lately. Potter and Smith are both struggling to be a complimentary piece but are perhaps playing out of their roles. Potter rode his early hot streak but now is taking a ton of bad shots. What Smith has become is this slasher, scorer for the team?

Let me first list my reasons for not loving (obviously this is too critical, every player has flaws, but with Smith becoming a go-to guy, I think it deserves deeper inspection)

• he makes bad passes--I counted about ten possessions in the ECU game where Smith made a bad pass that was a turnover or resulted in the other player committing a turnover. He makes some good passes--great assists but he has this tendency to revert to his Freshman mistakes and throw these stupid little passes out of the flow of the offense. One was a bullet to Young who was like two feet away, no one around, for no reason??
  
• Related to the first point, on the break he is not a great finisher. Too many times this year I have seen Tanner hustle to the ball, charge down the court and make a poor decision. He throws it away, doesnt make the best pass, and takes much more difficult shots than needed. He has trouble finishing around the basket and I think its because he lacks top end athleticism.
  
• Rebounding: Yes, he gets to loose balls and makes hustle plays but he gets caught (along with the rest of the Clemson team) flat footed trying to rebound. This is true for all the freshman, especially Jennings. We are getting beaten to rebounds and left staring at the ball because we arent elevating on to rebound. Tanner doesnt block out particularly well either, which we need from our three position.
  
• His defense is good but again he doesnt play above the rim much.
• 3-point shooting has been disappointing, only 32%--needs to be closer to 38-40 to be a legit threat deep.

I realize that this is a lot of ranting but I am worried that against superior athletic ability, Tanner will struggle and force some drives and turnovers like he did in the A&M and Illinois game, that the discrepancy between his talent and what he makes up for in hustle will be magnified. I like Tanner right now, but I love him as a glue guy. Cut down on the turnovers, improve the strength on rebounding, and finish at the basket. Thats what I am looking for heading into ACC play from Tanner. (Is the real reason why everyone likes him is cause he is white, unfulfilled basketball wish fantasies? Well I guess there is that whole thing about him being a good, selfless person too...)

Last bit of ranting, Narcisse has surprised me. When Purnell gave him that scholie I thought it was a total waste and he is not. He has some great leaping ability, long arms for the press and some tools to work on. What keeps him out of the line-up and should continue to do so is his lack of body control. Its one of those intrinsic qualities needed for basketball, a kind of body balance. Narcisse completely lacks a level of fluidity which makes his ball handling in particular but also his passing and sometimes shooting ugly. So while he can fly out of the gym, he will do things like jump way too early, give the ball away right after he has stolen it and generally spaz out from time to time.

These are kinks and growing pains that can be worked out of his game but at 6'6 he is not going to play the 4 unless he gains some serious muscle mass, and cant play the 2 bc of the poor ballhandling, shooting--so he is a 3 but lacks a great jumper or the ability to consistently create off the dribble. He is another athletic hustle guy who could try to develop into something more (to his credit you can see him trying to develop a three point shot). Its a question of whether you spend that developing time on him or someone like Milton Jennings (5* with height, a supposedly beautiful stroke that we havent seen yet and all the tools to land in the NBA) who finally had a good game in his limited minutes against ECU. Thats why I support Purnell in his choice to give Narcisse less playing time. Grant has taken a step backward in his progression, and we will need him much more than Narcisse in ACC play. Worry about why his minutes are decreasing...

Welcome Noel Johnson

Well well well, Terrence Oglesby you genius...you knew this was for the greater good. Somehow you knew that it was your time to go, that you had to sacrifice your position so that the team could get stronger.

Thank you TO, thank you...

Out with the old, in with the nucleus (old school Simpson joke). While I am at it I would also like to thank Tim Floyd for not only staying away from Clemson but also for having yet another scandal and releasing Johnson at just the right time. If you read this post there is one thing I want you to take away from it--this is big. This is a huge, perhaps pivotal signing for Clemson. This has the potential to launch us into the upper echelon of not only the ACC but makes us a legit top 15 team. That hasn't happened at Clemson--even in the days of Dale Davis and Elden Campbell we werent complete teams. Now we can have some staying power.

Here are the reasons why I am literally drooling about the prospects for next season. Johnson is 6' 7, can play the 1, 2, or 3 positions, can shoot, can penetrate, can play D. He is ranked around the number 50 player in the nation for 2009 by rivals and scout. This is a guy that any ACC team would take, and had it not been for our good fortune and timing would have made a push for him--some say he is the best shooter in the country out of high school this year. Now obviously I am excited and overstating my case but this is the best Clemson basketball recruiting class of my lifetime and, dare I say it, perhaps the best ever. We have now filled every need we once had. We have a serviceable PG rotation, a top shooting guard, we just improved ourselves defensively, and we have a set of four players who could all have an immediate impact. Way to recruit Oliver Purnell, you sir deserve a tip of my hat.

What is there not to like...not much. He needs to get a little quicker with his footwork and keep improving ball handling and passing. While I wish he was also known for great handles I can live with it. One thing we all know is that Clemson needs to improve its ballhandling, primarily entry passing to the post. TO brought a lot to like to the table but we just got more length at the SG position, more versatility, more athleticism, more defense, more discipline. Oh and did I mention he hits free throws, hopefully around 80%??

This is a good kid from what I have seen, not a ball hawk who shoots when he wants to. He played within the Fayetteville system and is very coachable from what I know, surrounded by NBA names etc. He is a legit talent and will ease the burden already put on Milton Jennings. Jennings will be better with Johnson and no one will be able to double team or cover both of them while committing to Booker inside. Little Booker will provide some depth and skill inside, helping Grant to back-up Big Booker, and Donte Hill is a defensive stopper, perhaps one of the more underrated three star prospects. He will provide a solid contribution off the bench.

So thank you TO, we could only have gotten better without you...

Go Tigers!!

Ronald and You, Yes You Milton Jennings

So just wanted to quickly put up something about the McDonalds All-American game last night. One of our prized recruits Milton Jennings got to play and the results were...well they dont really matter do they. That game is an all-star game where all anyone wants to do is dunk the ball. Anyone trying to play real basketball looks a little lost--like Milt. He got second in the skills challenge which is probably a better gauge of skill than this game. I love how this game actually mattered when kids were drafted out of high school (I love how many no talent nothings got drafted) but now, not so much. This is like Spring Practice to me--no matter how good Rendrick Taylor looks every year it doesnt translate into anything--granted that has a lot to do with the departed coach spence, rest his soul. So he played 14 minutes, scored 4 points or so, a steal and a block. But kinda looked a little slow compared to the other players. It will be interesting to see how good he really is and if he is the elite type talent Clemson has been lacking...you can tune in tomorrow to see him play in the RISE ESPN high school bball thing. Should be a better gauge of his talent...