January 2012
« Dec    

Category Cloud

2008 Football Season (188)
2008-09 Basketball Season (465)
2009 Football Season (136)
2009-10 Basketball Season (308)
2010 Football Season (244)
2010-11 Basketball Season (325)
2011 Baseball Season (37)
2011 Football Season (148)
2011-12 Basketball Season (157)
2012 Football Season (6)
850 The Buzz (6)
ACC (27)
ACC Baseball Tournament (4)
ACC Basketball (410)
ACC Bloggers Roundtable (1)
ACC Blogs (8)
ACC Football (224)
ACC Tournament (100)
ACC/Big Ten Challenge (10)
AD Search (8)
Analysis (128)
Anti-Duke (33)
Bad Officiating (9)
Beating Michigan St. (1)
Blogger Q&A (6)
Blogging (63)
Blogpoll (6)
Bowl Games (20)
Butch Davis Watch (9)
Caption This (1)
Car Care Bowl (3)
Carolina Hurricanes (16)
Carrier Classic (7)
Carrier Game (1)
CBI (3)
Cheaters (3)
Class Acts (4)
Coaching Search (55)
College Football (45)
College World Series (35)
Conference Realignment (5)
Daddy (4)
Dean Smith (10)
Dick Baddour (4)
Director's Cup (2)
Drafts (100)
Duke (10)
ESPN (36)
Final Four (54)
Former Players (18)
Game Thread (88)
General Sports Blogs (14)
Good Bad and Ugly Report (8)
History (38)
Holidays (2)
Idiot Analysts (15)
Idiotic Columns (24)
Injury Report (109)
International Basketball (15)
Justice (12)
Legal Trouble (5)
Life at Home (5)
Like Death Warmed Over (1)
Local Media/Blogs (90)
Locked Comments (2)
Losing to a Football School Sucks (1)
McDonalds AA Game (5)
MLB (9)
Music City Bowl (3)
Naismith Hall of Fame (10)
National Championship (44)
National Signing Day (1)
NBA (126)
NC Pro Am (6)
NC Sports Hall of Fame (2)
NCAA Baseball Tournament (18)
NCAA Basketball (109)
NCAA Investigation (204)
NCAA Tournament (314)
News (1)
NFL (31)
NIT (32)
Not Really A Sport (3)
Odds and Ends (10)
Official Stances (3)
Olympics (3)
PGA Golf (7)
Player Profile (32)
Player Transfers (5)
Player Tweets (2)
Polls (4)
Radio (1)
Rampant Stupidity (18)
Random Stuff (1)
Rant Mode (7)
Raycom Sports Blog Network (2)
Recruiting (97)
Referees (2)
Reflections (4)
Retraction (1)
Rivals (28)
Roy (29)
Satire/Humor (46)
Season Preview (12)
Senior Night (2)
Site Issues (2)
Sports in General (16)
Spring Practice (7)
Summer of Deon (22)
Team Scrilla (2)
The Duke Game (14)
The NCAA (30)
THF ACC Awards (3)
THF Community (4)
THF Countdown (32)
THF Family (6)
THF Fantasy Draft (1)
THF Tournament Pick 'em (4)
Total Lack of Class (2)
Tragic News (14)
Triangle Pigskin Preview (1)
Trolls (24)
Twitter (3)
Twitter Blog (1)
Twitter Live Blog (1)
UNC All Sports (31)
UNC Baseball (117)
UNC Basketball (1969)
UNC Blogs/Sites (1)
UNC Fans (1)
UNC Football (993)
UNC Men's Soccer (3)
UNC Women's Soccer (1)
UNC-Duke Game (24)
UNC-Duke Rivalry (8)
Uncategorized (8)
Unlinkables (11)
Vacation (7)
Weekend Open Thread (1)
Weird Crap (3)
Whiny Coaches (2)
Wisdom of Fools (2)
World Cup Soccer (1)
Year of Hell (10)
Zeke Smith Photos (4)

WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.

Hey, Are You Sure You Grabbed The Original Copy of the Scouting Report Off The Copier?

The answer to that question by some graduate assistant on the staff of a recent UNC opponent would be “oh crap!”

Via the N&O’s Andrew Carter who was handed a copy of a unnamed UNC opponent’s scouting report for a game against the Heels which was left on a copier in the Dean Dome. I am guessing there is a graduate assistant somewhere getting scolded for not being more careful with these types of documents. At least he didn’t leave a playbook behind not that UNC really needed it.

Anyway, here is what one of UNC’s opponents had to say about the Tar Heel players.

Kendall Marshall:

“Very crafty. Pushes the ball with the pass. Doesn’t like pressure. Must have active hands to affect vision.”

Dexter Strickland:
“Very aggressive in transition. Driver!! Their best defender – Always running through passing lanes.”

Harrison Barnes:
“Very efficient on offense. Good 3pt shooter. On dribble pull up. Make him uncomfortable.”

John Henson:
“Long and very active. Wants to spin off of you in post. Hates it physical. Hates pressure on perimeter. Physical block outs.”

Tyler Zeller:
“Runs pipe hard. Jump hook over left and right shoulder. Play the ball early. Hates it physical.”

Reggie Bullock:

“Shooter. Offensive rebounder. Looks for 3’s in transition.”

James Michael McAdoo:
“High energy offensive rebounder. Runs floor hard.”

P.J. Hairston:
“Shooter. Looking to shoot at all times. Doesn’t guard.”

In addition to the player breakdowns, the scouting report included a “team summary” about UNC. That read like this:

-Transition team looking to ball ahead and run the pipe
-Secondary – Carolina Break & 5 up
-Half court – Pus for Barnes/Shuffle for Bigs

-Deny wings
-Run and jump after TO’s
-Hard help on ball screens
-Marshall and Barnes don’t want to guard

The offensive keys for this particular team:
-Run it right back at them
-Earn space/get open/be strong

And the defensive keys for this particular team:
-Transition D
-Defensive rebounding/Physical box outs
-Getting after Marshall

I found it interesting how highly Dexter Strickland was regarded and that there is a perception P.J. Hairston doesn’t play defense. If you count yourself in the “play P.J. more” crowd that isn’t good news. Outside of that, Tyler Zeller and John Henson not liking physical play is hardly new information. Saying Marshall and Barnes “don’t want to guard” seems odd. In the case of Marshall his defensive issues have always struck me as one of ability not desire. In the case of Barnes, he has given off a vibe that he is disinterested on defense in some earlier games this season but there has not been much evidence of that lately. Oh and “run it right back at them”? Really? You really want to try that?

Exit question: Can someone tell me how you make Barnes “uncomfortable”?



Share This Post:
[Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Technorati] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]

21 comments to Hey, Are You Sure You Grabbed The Original Copy of the Scouting Report Off The Copier?

  • Heel To The End

    certainly is the kind of thing that could fire up our guys.
    no one wants to read stuff like that about themselves, whether its true or not.

  • lumpyj

    Exit question: Can someone tell me how you make Barnes “uncomfortable”?

    Um, Make him drive a car in Chapel Hill?

  • gso_tarheel

    “Can someone tell me how you make Barnes “uncomfortable”?”

    Ask him to describe what men like about Beyonce???

    Seriously, I took from this that you should force HB to put it on the floor and dribble. That is, guard him close and aggressively, and fight against his dribble drive - because he is not smooth with dribbling.

    For the most part, seems like a fairly accurate scouting report - play UNC physical and put pressure on defenders by driving defenders. And I think “running it right back at them” is the lesser of two evils for many UNC opponents - the alternative is going against UNC’s set defense where their length and size can shut you down.

    One thing about this scouting report I found odd is it is not very flattering of UNC. If one did not know, you would think UNC was not a ranked team…weird. Sounds like this particularly team needed to downplay UNC to build their own confidence. So, it was probably from one of the cupcakes we just recently destroyed.

  • faustus1500

    Clearly this opponent lost because they didn’t gameplan for Justin Watts ).

  • LarryS

    This is kind of interesting in that I don’t recall having seen anything like this before generated by a team.

    A breakdown of a report like this is kind of difficult to read between the lines, and I wouldn’t make too much out of what it seems to say about UNC, at least in terms of them being downplayed by the opponent. I would assume most any scouting report would be positive in nature, as opposed to indicating how difficult something might be to accomplish against the Heels.

    Also, if you see something like “run it right back at them”, this would indicate that particular team was willing to run, or play that type of game. You wouldn’t see something like that, for example, on Wisconsin’s scouting report.

  • deepenwide

    “Can someone tell me how you make Barnes “uncomfortable”?”
    Texas defenders seemed a bit gassy…
    This has Rick Barnes written all over it.

  • scl11

    Assessments are pretty accurate, and any game plan against UNC should be 1) play physical 2) make the weak links on defense (Marshall, Barnes, and Hairston) guard 3)Make Barnes put it on the floor where he has been turnover prone and less efficient

    The only one I would add is 4) Make them earn it from the free throw line.

    And I would change “run it right back at them” to “make them work for 35 seconds on the defensive end”.

  • faustus1500


    You just described Wisconsin’s gameplan against UNC.

  • rathskellar68

    The author of the rundown simply thinks what anyone would think who watched the UNLV game. But his idea to “run right back at them” is crazy. A running game is just what we want.

  • LarryS

    “The only one I would add is 4) Make them earn it from the free throw line.”

    Good point, and that seems to already be happening this year (16% higher rate of FTA’s, adjusted for pace, than last year) though it’s hard to tell if the increase has been effected by our opponents or by UNC seeking to draw fouls.

    The key will be who gets fouled.

  • AZACCFan

    So the team has had this little tidbit for weeks.

    I would like to know what the players think about it.

    Lots of great athletes have fueled themselves by critical, skeptical or negative comments that have been made about them.

  • makeitWayne22

    Part left out

    “Marshall and Barnes don’t want to guard”

    Coaches know those 2 want no part of defense. That has to change for Harrison ….

  • scl11

    “You just described Wisconsin’s gameplan against UNC.”

    Exactly, and one of the reasons UVA will give Carolina fits in their two meetings this season.

  • gso_tarheel

    Why would a team not want to “run it right back” offensively against UNC? Lots of teams have done this in recent years…Kentucky, Duke, UNLV, LBSU, Texas, Maryland, Wake Forest, GT.

    But notice the first item in the report under defensive keys. It is “Transition D”. Offensively pushing the ball against UNC is NOT how they kill you - it is UNC pushing the ball that kills teams. So a good opponent can “run it right back” at UNC, play good transition D and win.

  • True but the problem is keeping up that pace when you have to do it on offense and defense. UK tried to run with UNC then abandoned it in the second half for a slower tempo that caused that game to end up being only four possessions more than the Wisconsin game. Also, I have seen some stats that UNC’s DE is not quite as good early in the shot clock as late but running “right back at UNC” is generally a bad idea. You might get a basket here or there but I wouldn’t game plan that way.

  • ^Numbers certainly bear that out. UNC is 55-6 (0.909) under Roy in games with 80+ possessions, and 51-3 (0.944) since the start of the 2005 season.

    Simply put: You run with/at UNC, you lose.

  • deepenwide

    And the reasons our opponents lose: We are deep.
    We recruit what we run.
    We run what we recruit.

  • gso_tarheel

    ^^80+ possessions means the opponent let UNC run as well. That’s my point, you CAN run on UNC with success, but you better play some good transition D. No matter your offensive game plan against UNC (e.g., Wisconsin or Washington) you have to limit UNC’s offensive possessions by playing good transition D.

    I would have guessed UNC wins most high possession games (and CM’s stats back that up). But I would also guess that transition D is the culprit, not the opponents willingness to run. And if you say that running with UNC wears a team out, UNC has to run on both ends as well. If an opponent is used to playing high possession games, they should probably do that against UNC…with special emphasis on transition D.

  • LarryS

    “If an opponent is used to playing high possession games, they should probably do that against UNC…with special emphasis on transition D.”

    I agree with this, and think it’s harder, and less effective, to play a slow down game if you’re not used to it or built for it.

    If UNC can impose it’s will, and play the way it wants, it’s no surprise that they have such a high percentage of success in fast-paced games. Conversely, when they’re drawn into a game that they had rather not play, they can still win but probably not quite as efficiently.

    Last season, the 3 slowest-paced games of the year were against BC at home (where BC basically abandoned ORB’s to get back on transition D), and against Miami and Virginia on the road - all fairly close. So one might say this is the way to play UNC, but really only if you’re used to playing slow, which BC, Miami, and Virginia were last year.

    As far as this “mystery-team” scouting report (maybe it will be leaked eventually) goes, my guess would be (and this is certainly a wild guess) LBSU.

    Of course one would think LBSU would tend to want to play closer to their normal pace (they are the slowest-paced team, in terms of raw tempo, we’ve played at the Smith Center this year), but in the UNC game they ended up playing 10 possessions faster than avg., were able to keep their TO’s around their norm, and won the rebounding battle. So it appears they were a willing participant.

    Who knows which team this was, but it’s fun to speculate.

  • gregrustin


  • scl11

    Uh Duke is not very good, especially on D

Leave a Reply