From What I Saw Of Goodine

[Cuse Action]

if he were given anywhere near the pt that JG and Buddy were given, and the leeway to make a few turnovers , etc as were the other two, he would have developed into a very good player and not transferred. JB's favoritism led to this predicament.

 

[Wrinkle]

I saw a player who couldn't put the ball in the basket, couldn't dribble, turned the ball over. Goodine was not good. Doesn't mean he couldn't become a good player but his offensive numbers were unplayable. How can you be upset that a team which was clawing for every victory didn't give a project major minutes?

 

[Sherman20]

if he were given anywhere near the pt that JG and Buddy were given, and the leeway to make a few turnovers , etc as were the other two, he would have developed into a very good player and not transferred. JB's favoritism led to this predictamentm

Even if he was given the time Buddy was given as a freshman, it might have made a difference in his development. This idea that old Wrinkley says that he couldn’t hit shots, drive to the basket, etc. is not based in reality. He averaged like 5 mpg in ACC play. That’s not enough consistent playing time to get in a groove as a player. In the games where he got more than 5 minutes, he showed he could make plays. He hit 3s, he made quick drives to the basket. He was also wearing a mask for half of ACC play, and he had a difficult time adjusting to that.

 

[Fly Rodder]

There's a thread or three on this already, no?

 

[Tobias Funke]

Thanks goodness this thread started. The other one was full of takes on Goodine which is much different than this thread.

 

[orange79]

My goal is now to use the word "predictamentm" as much as I possibly can.

 

[OrangeDW]

if he were given anywhere near the pt that JG and Buddy were given, and the leeway to make a few turnovers , etc as were the other two, he would have developed into a very good player and not transferred. JB's favoritism led to this predictamentm

Right. Just like McCroskey developed into a good player after he was “given” a lot of PT as a freshman.

That Michael Edwards should’ve “developed” into an all time great PG after all that early playing time he got.

 

[SUFan44]

I saw a player who couldn't put the ball in the basket, couldn't dribble, turned the ball over. Goodine was not good. Doesn't mean he couldn't become a good player but his offensive numbers were unplayable. How can you be upset that a team which was clawing for every victory didn't give a project major minutes?

Buddy's defensive numbers are unplayable. Yet he plays 35 minutes per game.

I know it's not quite as easy to quantify. But they're the equivalent player.

Buddy > Goodine offensively.
Goodine > Buddy defensively.

IMO, it's closer than anyone really wants to admit.

 

[Cuse Action]

My goal is now to use the word "predictamentm" as much as I possibly can.

It was a typo man. It's been corrected. Are you always so lame?

 

[shermstheman]

Even if he was given the time Buddy was given as a freshman, it might have made a difference in his development. This idea that old Wrinkley says that he couldn’t hit shots, drive to the basket, etc. is not based in reality. He averaged like 5 mpg in ACC play. That’s not enough consistent playing time to get in a groove as a player. In the games where he got more than 5 minutes, he showed he could make plays. He hit 3s, he made quick drives to the basket. He was also wearing a mask for half of ACC play, and he had a difficult time adjusting to that.

you have 3’s plural. I think he hit one in ACC. I liked his potential. A lot. But he wasn’t going to pass JGlll - an elite shooter (or will be) and might be passed by others. He would have added a lot on D ... if he played but he saw that he wasn’t going to. Hope he excels wherever he lands

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Even if he was given the time Buddy was given as a freshman, it might have made a difference in his development. This idea that old Wrinkley says that he couldn’t hit shots, drive to the basket, etc. is not based in reality. He averaged like 5 mpg in ACC play. That’s not enough consistent playing time to get in a groove as a player. In the games where he got more than 5 minutes, he showed he could make plays. He hit 3s, he made quick drives to the basket. He was also wearing a mask for half of ACC play, and he had a difficult time adjusting to that.

The determinations of ability were made in practices. JB has always said practice is the predictor of playing time. Since no one is in practice to see what JB sees, you can't judge why kids play or don't play.

 

[orange79]

It was a typo man. It's been corrected. Are you always so lame?

Lame? I loved it! Don't get your panties into a predictamentm.

And yes, I am always so lame.

 

[upperdeck]

i think people really dont know how to watch a game if they think Buddy was awful on D. Dont just say a late close out makes you bad cause that means almost nothing.

 

[patcuse]

Buddy's defensive numbers are unplayable. Yet he plays 35 minutes per game.

I know it's not quite as easy to quantify. But they're the equivalent player.

Buddy > Goodine offensively.
Goodine > Buddy defensively.

IMO, it's closer than anyone really wants to admit.

Do you think that was settled when they went live scrimmage that would be the head to head match up.

 

[djcon57]

i think people really dont know how to watch a game if they think Buddy was awful on D. Dont just say a late close out makes you bad cause that means almost nothing.

Buddy was below average on D per many unbiased metrics.

but go on...

 

[upperdeck]

metrics based on whose idea on what good D is? I think the coaches know where they want the kids to be far better than random math guys.

I will give you he is a bit slow at times.

You can be in the right place in a zone and not really be near most anyone and you can be standing next to the guy with the ball and be in the totally wrong place..

if Goodine was playing better D or better O than Buddy he would have been playing more minutes, JB doesnt favor guys that dont give him a better chance to win.

Thats not to say more minutes wouldnt make some of these kids better, but this isnt football where the scout team kids play, in BBALL the 2nd team is going against the 1st team all the time. Thats why practice does make you better and how you practice matters.

 

[Madbiker]

The coaches saw Goodine every day in practice. If they thought he could help the team win or was better than another player, he would have played more.

 

[djcon57]

metrics based on whose idea on what good D is? I think the coaches know where they want the kids to be far better than random math guys.

I will give you he is a bit slow at times.

You can be in the right place in a zone and not really be near most anyone and you can be standing next to the guy with the ball and be in the totally wrong place..

if Goodine was playing better D or better O than Buddy he would have been playing more minutes, JB doesnt favor guys that dont give him a better chance to win.

Thats not to say more minutes wouldnt make some of these kids better, but this isnt football where the scout team kids play, in BBALL the 2nd team is going against the 1st team all the time. Thats why practice does make you better and how you practice matters.

who suggested Goodine should be playing more minutes than Buddy? The never ending strawmen arguments get tiring.

Buddy Boeheim should not have averaged almost 36 minutes a game with a competent defender and general overall player like Goodine on the bench. Period.

 

[upperdeck]

So coach a team and make it happen.. I would love to have gotten him more minutes.. change it to 30-10 and I dont think anything changes in whether he leaves or not. If you played him more than that it wouldnt have been pretty. I saw some nice things out of him too.. He also made a ton of mistakes in limited minutes

 

[djcon57]

So coach a team and make it happen.. I would love to have gotten him more minutes.. change it to 30-10 and I dont think anything changes in whether he leaves or not. If you played him more than that it wouldnt have been pretty. I saw some nice things out of him too.. He also made a ton of mistakes in limited minutes

oh it would not have been pretty?

we were 18-14. 1 win over top 75 rpi.

it wasn’t pretty. This season was to build the program.

 

[Scotch]

So coach a team and make it happen.. I would love to have gotten him more minutes.. change it to 30-10 and I dont think anything changes in whether he leaves or not. If you played him more than that it wouldnt have been pretty. I saw some nice things out of him too.. He also made a ton of mistakes in limited minutes

He’s a freshman. Jake said the staff didn’t want or expect this. He has upside. What are we risking giving guys more PT as we are losing 15 games?

 

[upperdeck]

the season perspective is changed because we failed to hold good leads in multiple games. that doesn't make it a bad season. 18-14.. would 21-11 make it good? Just the 2 games Hughes got hurt makes it 20-12 and 12/8 in the ACC.

Did Duke have a great season with vastly more talent at 25-6? or bad because they managed to be 4th in the ACC with all the talent?

UNC fell apart.

Just being relevant for 40 yrs where the bad yrs are bubble ish teams is more than anyone else has managed over that same time frame..

How many top teams have handled the coaching regime change well for the UCLA/Indianas/Kentucky/ UNCs of the world?

Would love it if we were better.. History has shown this aint an easy thing to do for any period of time. Sometimes coaching is just about luck too.

 

[djcon57]

the season perspective is changed because we failed to hold good leads in multiple games. that doesn't make it a bad season. 18-14.. would 21-11 make it good? Just the 2 games Hughes got hurt makes it 20-12 and 12/8 in the ACC.

Did Duke have a great season with vastly more talent at 25-6? or bad because they managed to be 4th in the ACC with all the talent?

UNC fell apart.

Just being relevant for 40 yrs where the bad yrs are bubble ish teams is more than anyone else has managed over that same time frame..

How many top teams have handled the coaching regime change well for the UCLA/Indianas/Kentucky/ UNCs of the world?

Would love it if we were better.. History has shown this aint an easy thing to do for any period of time. Sometimes coaching is just about luck too.

25-6 is better than 18-14, yes.

also we werent on the bubble at all this year outside of this forum

 

[upperdeck]

He’s a freshman. Jake said the staff didn’t want or expect this. He has upside. What are we risking giving guys more PT as we are losing 15 games?

So dont try to win the games? Are we in HS now? 5-10 more minutes a game wasnt gonna keep him here if playing time was what he wanted? if he wasnt good enough to take time away from the 2 ahead of him then where is he going to get the 30 min he wants?

he never play at any level where he earned 20 min so should they have lost all those games by 10 to give him minutes or try to win them?

 

[BludOrange]

Times have changed. Use to play patsys and have opportunities for freshman to develop and carve out a possible role before league play starts. That's no longer the case. If you play other top programs and lose 3-4 games early in the season as we did, you're behind the 8-ball and then forced to start worrying more about winning now, than developing players for the long term if still wanting to make the big dance. So the bench gets shortened as a result and the young guns don't get a chance to ever feel comfortable or build confidence on the floor. When they do get in, their leash has been shortened as well. One mistake and they're back sitting on the bench.