|
Replies: 40
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1300]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 951
Joined: 11/27/21
|
Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell?
2
Mar 14, 2023, 10:35 AM
|
|
He had to face a tougher ACC for one thing and didn’t seem to recruit exceptionally well. But he made an ACC championship game and 3 NCAA Tourneys in 7 years. He did this after taking over for Shyatt who turned us into a bottom feeder where as Brownell inherited a much better situation. Purnell also did it in the old Littlejon which was supposedly our Achilles heel. Just don’t understand it and would love to hear opinions.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1162]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 630
Joined: 7/8/12
|
Full Court Press = Option Football ( in my opinion )
1
3
Mar 14, 2023, 10:39 AM
|
|
Gimmicky and with ‘athletes’ and ideally a few shooters, it’ll beat most below average teams and the
Dukes, UVA, UNC’s occasionally, especially with little time to prepare.
However, he’s 0 - 4 when it mattered because a good team will rip a full court offense gimmick apart.
May work for Pitino etc’ at places like Louisville with you know, actual basketball support, but at places like Clemson.
It’s a Paul Johnson lite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1300]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 951
Joined: 11/27/21
|
True. His teams were a lot more difficult to prepare for on short rest
Mar 14, 2023, 10:52 AM
|
|
Especially at that time when his style wasn’t as common.
And that is also a good point that he didn’t have much success once he got to the tourney which was confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 134
Joined: 1/28/07
|
Re: Full Court Press = Option Football ( in my opinion )
1
Mar 14, 2023, 11:13 AM
[ in reply to Full Court Press = Option Football ( in my opinion ) ] |
|
I think you are exactly right. Brownell said as much when he was hired. The press does not bother the best teams because they have great guards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [759]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 1091
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Full Court Press = Option Football ( in my opinion )
Mar 15, 2023, 8:48 AM
[ in reply to Full Court Press = Option Football ( in my opinion ) ] |
|
Gimmicky and with ‘athletes’ and ideally a few shooters, it’ll beat most below average teams and the
Dukes, UVA, UNC’s occasionally, especially with little time to prepare.
However, he’s 0 - 4 when it mattered because a good team will rip a full court offense gimmick apart.
May work for Pitino etc’ at places like Louisville with you know, actual basketball support, but at places like Clemson.
It’s a Paul Johnson lite.
You run your mouth a lot about "actual basketball support" as the reason brownell has been a consistently mediocre coach over 13 years. What have you done to support Clemson Basketball that puts you in such a pious position to lecture the Tigernet masses opposed to an NIT ceiling? Pro tip keyboard observations and poster insults don't move the credibility needle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44054]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32967
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Top 5 in ACC wins since 2017 isn’t “consistently mediocre.”
2
Mar 15, 2023, 9:50 AM
|
|
Please try again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16919]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Top 5 in ACC wins since 2017 isn’t “consistently mediocre.”
1
Mar 15, 2023, 10:44 AM
|
|
The NCAA committee doesn’t seem to agree with you. We’re always supposed to listen to the authorities. They’re there for a reason and we’re not. I’ve heard that (or similar) somewhere. So I agree that Neff thinks Brad’s good enough. You agree the NCAA tournament committee thinks he’s not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15130
Joined: 2/13/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3527
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Re: Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell?
2
Mar 14, 2023, 10:48 AM
|
|
OP recruiting great athletes. He also developed big boy basketball - starting inside and then working out. They played fast and free and that is a magnet to athletes. Slow and boring drives them away. Just like playing mid major basketball of chunking up 3s. You must have inside players, rim protectors, rebounders. Something Brad does not develop. We do have the luxury this year of a bit more size - but they still don’t rebound or rim protect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64593]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88998
Joined: 3/27/01
|
You mean besides the fact that he was a better coach?***
1
Mar 14, 2023, 11:02 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1279]
TigerPulse: 53%
Posts: 1043
Joined: 3/4/15
|
Re: You mean besides the fact that he was a better coach?***
1
2
Mar 14, 2023, 11:11 AM
|
|
He could not coach at all. When forced to play a half-court game by a good team he was toast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64593]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88998
Joined: 3/27/01
|
3 NCAAT appearances and 4 20+ win seasons says otherwise***
1
Mar 14, 2023, 11:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16058]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24596
Joined: 5/14/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22361
Joined: 4/24/04
|
I've heard a few times recently this idea that OP didn't
4
Mar 14, 2023, 11:06 AM
|
|
recruit well. Based on what? Compared to what? Compared to Duke and UNC or compared to normal Clemson standards?
Purnell was the best recruiter we've had at Clemson since Cliff Ellis. His teams were far more talented than anything Brownell has put on the floor. If i had to put together a 12 man roster from the last 20 years (OP + Brad), half or more of the roster would probably be Purnell players despite him only coaching about half as long as Brad.
Purnell's biggest weakness was just his in-game coaching ability. When we were making NCAATs under Purnell we had good players and a fairly unique and effective style. We just got into trouble when the press wasn't effective or when we tried to come out of it to slow games down. OP never had an effective Plan-B nor the ability to draw up any kind of situational OOB or end-of-game plays in key situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44054]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32967
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I agree about Purnell’s recruiting.
1
Mar 15, 2023, 11:37 AM
|
|
I think recruiting was one of his strong suits. He recruited a good combination of players - long, athletic types to press the inbounds pass (James Mayes, Trevor Booker) and good shooters (KC Rivers, Cliff Hammonds, Terrence Oglesby).
Now, it certainly wasn’t consistently top 20-25 level. I only recall one class that was, and it was a disappointment with Milton Jennings, Noel Johnson, etc. But he got good players to fit his system.
Purnell’s recruiting was not good his last year, which is part of why I think he left. We only had one commitment, Marcus Thornton, who was a 3 star. This made the cupboard bare for Brad’s second year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [800]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1280
Joined: 5/4/03
|
Re: Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell?
2
Mar 14, 2023, 11:06 AM
|
|
Insinuate, gripe, complain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1300]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 951
Joined: 11/27/21
|
Brownell does seem to complain about all these situations
Mar 14, 2023, 11:14 AM
|
|
Maybe that’s why Purnell was better? He just went to work and didn’t try to spin his coaching failures with a woe is me attitude
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44054]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32967
Joined: 2/22/03
|
No, he just quit.***
1
Mar 15, 2023, 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20654
Joined: 9/2/02
|
It was a more entertaining brand of basketball.***
Mar 14, 2023, 11:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22361
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Very true
Mar 14, 2023, 11:14 AM
|
|
The runs we could go on when we were getting steals and bombing threes were incredible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1676]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2113
Joined: 8/27/11
|
Re: Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell?
Mar 14, 2023, 11:12 AM
|
|
Brownell doesn't recruit AAU
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10360]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 14030
Joined: 11/9/04
|
EASY ANSWER.......
2
Mar 14, 2023, 11:29 AM
|
|
IMO
Clemson Basketball needs a "gimmick" to have success. They CAN'T depend on landing top bball recruits or pure "Xs&Os". Just as GT had the triple option to somewhat level the playing field in football for them.
Purnell brought a BRAND of bball and he recruited athletes to play bball rather than true "bball players"............now he'd sprinkle in some solid ones........KC, TO, etc..., but he depended more on raw athleticism atheletes that could run his brand of defense/press/offense.............it wasn't always successful, but it was enough of a differentiator to offset the limitations that Clemson bball has compared to your UNCS/Dukes of the world/conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58427]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46328
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Better players, who were a better fit for his style of
3
Mar 14, 2023, 11:37 AM
|
|
basketball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8003]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10459
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell?
Mar 14, 2023, 11:47 AM
|
|
Did he have a better run than CBB? The winning percentage is within one win per year of being the same. He did make the dance but could never win a single game even against lower seeded teams. Never won at UNC.
We can argue who had the better run but to the unbiased person it is a within the margin of error. So the question becomes why do you think making the tournament three times but not winning a single one of the three games makes him a better coach?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell?
1
Mar 14, 2023, 1:20 PM
|
|
Winning games in the tournament often comes down to the matchups you get. If Brownell had made the tournament and won games in several different seasons then I could see the point, but one of his wins came in the play-in round which means that he's only gotten himself out of the round of 64 1 time so let's not pretend as if he's been great at winning tournament games whenever he's made it either. Overall though, yes, I would say that making the tournament more often but losing in the 1st round is better than making the tournament 3 out of 13 years and winning at least 1 game in 2 of those 3 years.
If a football coach makes the CFP 5 years in a row but losses in the 1st round in each of those 5 years is he suddenly not any better than a coach that makes the CFP 1 time in 10 years but wins the 1st round game in the year he made it?
As for the winning percentage, that comes down to the level of ACC competition. The ACC was tougher while Purnell was here. Never would you have seen a team back then finish 3rd in the ACC and miss the tournament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22361
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Through your post i have determined that:
Mar 14, 2023, 3:15 PM
|
|
Purnell = Lincoln Riley
Brownell = Mark Helfrich
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell?
1
Mar 14, 2023, 1:23 PM
[ in reply to Re: Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell? ] |
|
And as for winning a game at UNC. It might've helped Purnell in his chances if he ever faced a UNC team that finished 14th in the ACC with a 14-19 overall record. Clemson was 1 of 8 teams that won on the road against UNC that year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5972]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3942
Joined: 1/10/04
|
Roy William's only losing season also***
Mar 14, 2023, 3:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [122]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 40
Joined: 12/26/13
|
Re: Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell?
1
Mar 14, 2023, 12:00 PM
|
|
The same Purnell that didn't win a tourney game? 3 years in a row of NCAA tourney w/o a win is something fans would lambast BB for.
And a lot of talk about his recruiting on here. Let's keep in mind that he left on his on volition, but rumors were that he was leaving because recruiting was falling behind and Clemson was about to drop off (both of which happened). Left before his seat got hot.
And old LJC wasn't an issue for OP because it was still even with the rest of the league. It became a thing for BB because the rest of the ACC had upgraded facilities and we were bottom of the league facility-wise according to players I spoke with and in recruiting circles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell?
Mar 14, 2023, 1:29 PM
|
|
I'd take making the tournament 3 years in a row and losing in the 1st round all 3 years. At least then the regular season would be a lot of fun, and your compliant to that is we didn't ever make it out of the round of 64? You know how many times we've gotten out of the round of 64 with Burnell? 1 time in 13 years. You're complaining about how we didn't win an NCAA tournament game for those 3 years with Purnell? You know when the last time was that we won an NCAA tournament game under Brownell? 5 years ago!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell?
Mar 14, 2023, 1:30 PM
|
|
Not sure why I typed Burnell once in that last post. I know his name is Brownell!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7166]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10141
Joined: 6/27/07
|
Purnell's teams would fizzle in the tourney games tho
Mar 14, 2023, 1:00 PM
|
|
my guess is they were worn out. So his style was at times exciting but wasn't sustainable. They served as a bugaboo for certain matchups but also were just a gimmick and good teams would usually eat us alive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16058]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24596
Joined: 5/14/02
|
Brad's haven't been much better...Just one year where we...
Mar 14, 2023, 3:18 PM
|
|
made it out of the first round and he's been here twice as long a Purnell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22361
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Guess how many games Purnell's 3 NCAAT teams lost
Mar 14, 2023, 3:30 PM
[ in reply to Purnell's teams would fizzle in the tourney games tho ] |
|
by double digits in 3 years. Six, total! And three of those were to 2009 UNC and 2010 Duke, both of whom won national titles.
Brownell had 5 double digit losses this year alone and two of those were to Loyola Chicago and Louisville.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7166]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10141
Joined: 6/27/07
|
great facts. Don't know where you're getting that I'm
Mar 15, 2023, 8:34 AM
|
|
arguing that Brownell was a better coach that OP. Think they both had their strengths and weaknesses. I also believe they're about the same overall.
My only argument would be that this year was a good year for Clemson basketball. To get on Tigernet and dog Coach B after a 3rd place finish is asinine and Clemson fans shouldn't be asinine. Its not a year that you fire your coach. There will be others. There is no perfect coach. The next coach will probably do about the same thing. Do some things well and others not.
We should be able to celebrate a good year together and probably should be collectively complaining to the selection committee and asking them to explain about snubbing us. They need to be aware that we exist the next time we are "on the bubble." We were a higher ranked bubble team than NCSU or Pitt.
And I also don't believe its as easy as you guys think to get in the tourney. I think you're comparing recent years to how it was done in the past. 3rd place in the past was a shoe-in for the tourney. Even in a weak conference year and thats not debatable. Metrics have changed the game. Parity is at an all time high. Mid Majors are not longer red-headed step children. Its hard to get in this thing now.
Comparing Purnell years and Brownell years (in terms of tourney appearances) is not the same thing. As far as ACC being weak.. 5 teams got in. So there are 5 teams better than a 3rd place Clemson team that had a 5-3 record against the other selected teams. So if those teams are better than us then can't be too weak.
Brownell lives another day. It will be hard to top this season and we will see what happens next year. Can't expect 3rd place or better every year in the ACC. I think we got picked over simply b/c we're Clemson (not basketball history/pedigree) Pitt and NCSU do have those things. Same reason we get selected in Football over certain teams when we're on the bubble. Its politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9184]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2806
Joined: 2/23/23
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44054]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32967
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I don’t consider OP more successful than Brownell.
1
Mar 15, 2023, 10:07 AM
|
|
They were pretty similar, both with their own pros and cons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16919]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: I don’t consider OP more successful than Brownell.
2
Mar 15, 2023, 10:49 AM
|
|
Just to help you out.
.611 Clemson win percentage against an average 8.05 SOS ≠ .578 Clemson win percentage against a 6.96 average SOS.
But please, continue your systematic propaganda campaign. Some people do believe it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [495]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 651
Joined: 11/6/15
|
Re: I don’t consider OP more successful than Brownell.
2
Mar 15, 2023, 11:49 AM
[ in reply to I don’t consider OP more successful than Brownell. ] |
|
I think that you could make such an argument, but I would call a strong position to take. That said, I would say the majority of Tiger Basketball fans would prefer OP.
To wit:
1. Clear upward trajectory. Losing record 1st year, 3 straight years of improved record with NIT, 3 straight years Big Dance with top-5 ACC standings.
2. Final 3 seasons in NCAA Tournament.
3. Clear, entertaining style of basketball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [495]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 651
Joined: 11/6/15
|
Re: I don’t consider OP more successful than Brownell.
Mar 15, 2023, 12:08 PM
|
|
Forgive my typing. Meant to say I would not call that a strong position to take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [805]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 816
Joined: 10/15/13
|
Re: Serious question- Why was Purnell more successful than Brownell?
Mar 15, 2023, 11:10 AM
|
|
Spurious assertion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 40
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
