Defense comparison (split)

#1

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
29,638
Likes
35,430
#1
+1,000. Anyone who watches a game should understand his coaching ability is light years beyond Pearl, as far as on-court coaching goes. And that can be seen after such a small number of games.

Everyone knows you have to be able to get the horses in college bball, though. Would be massive for his program here at Tenn.
Without turning this into a Pearl vs Martin saga, Pearl's defensive philosophy and coaching ability was light years better than what Martin has shown so far. I will agree that Martin's motion offense looks much more fluid than what Pearl was running.
 
#2

zjcvols

"On a Tennessee saturday night."
Staff member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
79,980
Likes
28,935
#2
Without turning this into a Pearl vs Martin saga, Pearl's defensive philosophy and coaching ability was light years better than what Martin has shown so far. I will agree that Martin's motion offense looks much more fluid than what Pearl was running.
Come on.
 
Likes: 1 person
#10

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
29,638
Likes
35,430
#10
Pearl never had a great half-court defensive team. I've seen him put together some really good gameplans like last year vs. Pitt. However, that was the exception, not the rule.
Yes, we can all pick and choose games in which they played well as a team or poor, but overall his teams created opportunities with TOs, making opposing teams use timeouts trying to inbound the ball, etc. Martin's teams have only forced one opponent to shoot under 42% this year (D-2 Chaminade) and only force 10 TOs a game. Whether you think that is better or worse than Pearl is basically irrelevant to the point. The point is, it's not good.
 
#11

zjcvols

"On a Tennessee saturday night."
Staff member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
79,980
Likes
28,935
#11
Yes, we can all pick and choose games in which they played well as a team or poor, but overall his teams created opportunities with TOs, making opposing teams use timeouts trying to inbound the ball, etc. Martin's teams have only forced one opponent to shoot under 42% this year (D-2 Chaminade) and only force 10 TOs a game. Whether you think that is better or worse than Pearl is basically irrelevant to the point. The point is, it's not good.
1) This is first year without his players. It's not just about results at this point. It's only seven games.

2) Yes, Pearl's teams forced more turnovers, but also gave up more easy baskets than Martin's teams. It's not just about turnovers.

3) We've had one bad defensive game against Oakland. I think we have been an above average defensive team.

4) Again, seven games. Three against top 25 teams. Four against last year NCAA Tourney teams.

Now, back to Stokes.
 
Likes: 2 people
#12

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
29,638
Likes
35,430
#12
1) This is first year without his players. It's not just about results at this point. It's only seven games.

Well, ok, but we can't say it has been good either if its only been 7 games. If I can't say its bad for that reason, then it would stand to reason that people of the opposite opinion can't say its better than the past 6 years worth of results either.

2) Yes, Pearl's teams forced more turnovers, but also gave up more easy baskets than Martin's teams. It's not just about turnovers.

Agree, but we cannot only turnover our opponent 10 times a game, allow them to shoot in the mid 40's, and give up 18 offensive rebounds, and expect to beat the type of teams we will play. We have to improve in some phase defensively.

3) We've had one bad defensive game against Oakland. I think we have been an above average defensive team.

Agree to disagree. IMO, our defensive has been pedestrian at best and will cost the majority of our losses. Of our four losses, which games would you say our offense has been the culprit? Answer...Duke. Pitt, bad interior defense, bad perimeter defense, bad defensive rebounding, and we only turned them over six times. Memphis, they scored 99 points. How can you possibly call that acceptable defense? Look at TOs and FG% from that game as well. We beat them on the boards, specifically on the offensive end to stay in that game. Oakland, you already conceded as a bad defensive performance.

4) Again, seven games. Three against top 25 teams. Four against last year NCAA Tourney teams.

See comments from point 1.

Now, back to Stokes.
.
 
#13

LawVol13

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
11,521
Likes
0
#13
Yes, we can all pick and choose games in which they played well as a team or poor, but overall his teams created opportunities with TOs, making opposing teams use timeouts trying to inbound the ball, etc. Martin's teams have only forced one opponent to shoot under 42% this year (D-2 Chaminade) and only force 10 TOs a game. Whether you think that is better or worse than Pearl is basically irrelevant to the point. The point is, it's not good.
Pearl's last 3 teams didn't force many turnovers and were mediocre halfcourt defensive teams.
 
#15

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
29,638
Likes
35,430
#15
Pearl's last 3 teams didn't force many turnovers and were mediocre halfcourt defensive teams.
Agree, they were average in the halfcourt, but they were better than 10 TOs per game. His philosophy I spoke of was not utilized in the seasons you mentioned because the personnel was not in place to execute it. He stated as much himself. His first three seasons, his teams played great overall defense. Might be average in the halfcourt, but great in the fullcourt and on inbound plays. I just don't see that type of intensity from Martin's team, and it is related to his philosophy which can be seen in his MSU teams. His philosophy is not designed around creating TOs, but he needs to limit opponents shooting % and consistently beat teams on the boards. It may be a personnel thing for him too. He may be limited with the players he inherited. I just like defensive philosophies predicated on creating TOs and creating havoc and tiring teams out.
 
#16

Roustabout

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
19,596
Likes
15,772
#16
Pearl took a team to the elite 8, which required him to totally change his scheme from press to half court. He basically took a team of transfers and leftovers and led them to the elite 8. Pearl's style had his shortcomings, but I fear UT fans will be missing him more than they know. Cuonzo is on a rampage stealing talent from the mid-majors. Now, I'll give credit where due. If he lands a big name, then excellent. But so far his recruiting is much like his coaching in big games. Close but no cigar.
 
#17

LawVol13

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
11,521
Likes
0
#17
Agree, they were average in the halfcourt, but they were better than 10 TOs per game. His philosophy I spoke of was not utilized in the seasons you mentioned because the personnel was not in place to execute it. He stated as much himself. His first three seasons, his teams played great overall defense. Might be average in the halfcourt, but great in the fullcourt and on inbound plays. I just don't see that type of intensity from Martin's team, and it is related to his philosophy which can be seen in his MSU teams. His philosophy is not designed around creating TOs, but he needs to limit opponents shooting % and consistently beat teams on the boards. It may be a personnel thing for him too. He may be limited with the players he inherited. I just like defensive philosophies predicated on creating TOs and creating havoc and tiring teams out.
That's fine. However, defense that is predicated on turnovers rarely wins championships. It's those teams that can lock you down in the halfcourt that do.
 
#18

LawVol13

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
11,521
Likes
0
#18
Pearl took a team to the elite 8, which required him to totally change his scheme from press to half court. He basically took a team of transfers and leftovers and led them to the elite 8.
What does that say about Pearl's recruiting? He brought all of those guys in. You act as if he had no choice.
 
#19

alumvol08

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
1,175
Likes
1
#19
Pearl took a team to the elite 8, which required him to totally change his scheme from press to half court. He basically took a team of transfers and leftovers and led them to the elite 8. Pearl's style had his shortcomings, but I fear UT fans will be missing him more than they know. Cuonzo is on a rampage stealing talent from the mid-majors. Now, I'll give credit where due. If he lands a big name, then excellent. But so far his recruiting is much like his coaching in big games. Close but no cigar.
Pearl's first class of Ryan Childress and Damien Harris was unbelievable.
 
#20

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
29,638
Likes
35,430
#20
You can praise Pearl for several legitimate things. However, his defense isn't one of them.
At this point, the same can be said for Martin, and that is my point. His defensive philosophy is not predicated on creating TOs. Pearl's was, and to this point, I think his was more effective.
 
#23
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
676
Likes
1
#23
At this point, the same can be said for Martin, and that is my point. His defensive philosophy is not predicated on creating TOs. Pearl's was, and to this point, I think his was more effective.
Pearl is gone! Get over it and take your homerism elsewhere. You have 7 games to base your opinion on as far as Martin's defense, most of which against quality opponents. As for recruiting getting Stokes would silence any doubters. Not to mention Martin didn't exactly have a head start on the class we have now. Just kick back, relax, and enjoy watching the new staff work!
 
#24

LawVol13

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
11,521
Likes
0
#24
I understand, but that is my point. How can people laud his coaching performance based on 7 games, yet I can't criticize it? Seems like double-standard.
You can laud or criticize all you want. However, I don't think that lauding or criticizing him requires constant comparison to Bruce Pearl.
 
Likes: 3 people

VN Store




Top