2000-2001:

At the press conference where new Head Coach Paul Hewitt was introduced, he asserted that the goal of the team was to make the NCAA Tournament in his first year at the helm. Most incredulous listeners and readers of that claim interpreted the statement as Hewitt's attempt to instill a new positive attitude to a down trodden program. But the new coach was being more literal than most thought.

This was a program after all, that was picked to finish 8th in the conference, and had finished 13-17 overall and 5-11 in conference in the previous season, and was losing it's top scorer and best player in Jason Collier to the NBA and another starter to boot. Not to mention that Tech had an incoming recruiting class that was not highly regarded. This was a team about which the athletic director himself stated, at the same press conference, that fans would have to be patient and to give coach Hewitt time to get the program back to the NCAA tournament.

But Paul Hewitt saw a dominating defensive Center, a solid point guard, a collection of decent shooters and an experienced squad, which he believed might be enough for him to work with. The new coach stated his goals specifically, he wanted intensive physical training and individual instruction to get all his players to improve themselves in the basic skills of dribbling, passing and shooting. The end result was to have players that do not run plays, but know how to make the correct decisions on the court for themselves, and to be in top physical shape so that the team will play with confidence and vigor for 40 minutes.

Fans and media will now take notice of what coach Hewitt says, because he successfully carried out what few but the most optimistic thought he could. How did it happen? He scored early points with fans by having the entire team run at dawn because two players missed a class in only Hewitt's second day on campus. Hewitt recruited demoralized Alvin Jones and Tony Akins to remain on the squad. The coach convinced two of three (missing Brendan Plavich) of Cremins' Fall recruits to follow through and enroll at Tech, and added untouted Robert Brooks very late. And that was the start.

Much was made of the running and pressing system Hewitt was to install. Questions abounded: Did he have the personnel to run and press? Did the existing corps of players have enough potential to improve with Hewitt's intensive system? Would these players buy into the program?

Early and surprise wins over Kentucky and UCLA and then going 4-4 through the first ACC go 'round provided some answers. The team was predominantly a half court team, but was opportunistic in implementing the run and press. The Jackets were scrappy, they played hard for 40 minutes, even if it was not pretty. The team engaged in some scuffles with the opposition, displaying the new-found scrappiness. Hewitt was correct in that the physical conditioning resulted in more confident play. Despite the lack of "ACC quality players," the team had ten players that averaged at least 9 minutes per game and nine players that averaged at least 14 minutes per game. The coach rode Center Alvin Jones and PG Tony Akins very hard the entire season and substituted freely every game, searching his bench for and exploiting the hot hand and favorable match-up wherever he could find it.

For the season, the team outscored the opposition (76.6-72.9), shot a better percentage (.426-.407), and percentage from three (.371-.317), from the free throw line (.690-.685), had more assists (488-434), fewer turnovers (474-483), more blocks (136-109) and more steals (238-200) than the opposition. Compare those figures to the previous season where the team was outscored by the competition (70.6-71.4), out shot (.408-.425), and from three (.343-.369), from the free throw line (.683-.697), out-assisted (456-460), had more turnovers (509-427) and were out stolen (196-255). From the previous season, the team improved its scoring, scoring margin, shooting percentage (overall, three and free throw), and shooting percentage defense, assists, turnovers, turnovers created, steals and steals allowed. Only in rebounding did the team do poorly compared to the competition (37.5-40 rpg) and the previous year year (37.5-38.9).

Despite losing its top two scorers in Jason Floyd and All ACC Jason Collier, and despite returning an undersized and often injured PF, A head case at Center, a 6'3" Frosh 2G playing out of position at wing forward, and Div II transfer at 2G and a PG who couldn't play a whole game without leg cramps, and a team who's top scoring reserve (at 4.8 ppg) had a broken foot…Coach Hewitt found a formula for success.

Wow!

Of course, it wasn't always pretty, especially at the end of the season. The team lost its shooting touch down the stretch. Tech had the chance to finish 9-7 in conference going into it's last game against FSU, and shot near 25% from the floor in the game to fall to the Seminoles 59-69. The shooting woes would continue in the ACC tournament where, in the second round, Tech was facing a sputtering Tar Heels team. But, Tech sputtered worse, shooting poorly and going over 7 minutes in the second half without a field goal. Still the team scrapped and made it a very close game. The team also shot poorly in their loss to St. Joe's in the Big Dance. Did the opposition figure us out or did such an intense year just wear out the team both physically and emotionally before the end of the season?

But the overall results are unequivocal. The season was an overwhelming success. And the new coach that was received with a resounding, "Paul Who?" took only one season for everyone associated with Tech to feel fortunate with Dave Braine's hire. Braine himself was pleased enough to restructure Paul Hewitt's contract. And Paul Hewitt signed his new agreement, once he had worked in getting all of his assistants significant pay raises as well; an act that personifies Tech's head coach and is a fitting final punctuation to Paul Hewitt's first season at Georgia Tech.

PERSONNEL

WHO'S NOT RETURNING

Alvin Jones: One would think that a First Team All-ACC pick, The ACC's top rebounder, a three time Defensive First Team All-ACC pick, the fourth leading shot blocker in ACC history, collapsing the Tech career blocks record, one of a handful of Tech players ever to have over 1,000 career rebounds, and over 1,300 career points...one would think that such a player would be held in universal high regard among Tech fans. You might think that, but you would be wrong. Was it his perpetual scowl, his inconsistent play, his less than graceful offensive game or just that he played on teams that generally struggled? Perhaps it was all of the above.

Admittedly, there were many factors as to why Tech was so improved last season, but no single reason was any more significant than the play of Alvin Jones. One of Paul Hewitt's most impressive feats last season was his handling of Alvin Jones, a player not easy to keep focused. Jones' presence in the post changed the way opposing offenses attacked our defense. Tech was able to defend the perimeter and encourage players to drive into the paint where Jones waited. Teams that depended on driving into the paint, like Virginia, were severely hampered by Jones, who was both big and mobile. The opposition always tried to get in Jones' head and try to get him to lose composure. Hewitt did a fine job helping Alvin hold it together.

By the middle of the conference slate, Jones was peaking. He was involved offensively and was hitting turn-around jumpers, effectively passing out of double teams and really influencing the game on both sides of the court. He scored 26 points in consecutive conference games against FSU and Clemson. He followed that with a 16 pt and 18 rebound game against the Heels and Brendan Haywood. It was during this part of the season that Jones secured his All ACC First Team status.

However, by the end of the year, he began to struggle. His offense deserted him as the opposing defenses consistently forced him deep baseline or double teamed him. Perhaps frustration from offensive struggles or fatigue from shouldering such a huge burden for the team over the course of the season, Alvin seemed to lose focus as he was apt to do in the past. Nonetheless, the reason you saw an effective team last season had as much to do with Alvin Jones as any other player. He may be the single most underestimated player in Tech history.

It is the loss of Alvin Jones that will have the biggest impact on the fortunes of this year's team. He averaged 29.2 minutes per game, shot .482 from the floor and .596 from the stripe. He led the team in turnovers with 90, had 101 blocks and 28 steals. We lose 13.6 ppg and 10.1 rppg. More than that, teams are now going to challange us in the paint.

Shaun Fein: If Alvin Jones' personality was hindered by his scowling countenance, then Fein's was enhanced by his obvious enjoyment of playing basketball. His big smile was endearing. The Stoney Hill College transfer was the team's leading scorer during the team's preconference slate. He scored 32 against Wofford in the team's opener, had 24 against Stanford, 25 at UVA and 23 at Clemson. Perhaps his best Tech moment was scoring 18 against Kentucky, two of those in a last second baseline runner to win the game. Fein averaged 27 minutes per game, shot .432 from the floor, .396 from three and only .695 from the stripe. He was second on the team with 65 assists. Fein was a shooter, although he did round out his game somewhat to develop a mid-range game and some driving ability. Despite working hard he did struggle, both offensively and defensively, against premier athletic 2Gs, especially Joe Forte. But if defenses fell asleep on him, he would make them pay. Like many Tech players, his shooting slumped at the end of the year. He finished the season as Tech's second leading scorer, with a 13.7 ppg average. Fein was able to stretch the defense to the three point line and was a decent decision maker on the break. Tech must not only replace his points, but his positive disposition on the floor.

Jon Babul: Jon Babul had the unenviable task of playing PF at the high Division I level while being markedly undersized. Although listed at 6'7", he looked no taller than 6'5" when standing next to his team mates. Babul touhged it out and contributed however he could, as usual. He had his best scoring season, statistically with 6.0 ppg and adding 3.6 rpg. His season high was 14 pts against Clemson. He averaged 19.8 minutes per game and was the team's second leading shot blocker with 15 (behind Jones' 101). He occasionally flashed a decent jumper, but did most of his damage at the foul line, where he shot 80%. Babul had fought injuries his entire year, but was able to suit-up the entire year. Babul did the little things to help the team, played hard, dove on the floor, set screens, boxed out, etc. He was unselfish and was a smart and experienced player. He takes those intangibles with him to what will likely be a very successful coaching career.

T.J. Vines: Besides Tony Akins, Vines was the only scholarship PG on the team. Despite only playing an average of 13.5 minutes per game, Vines led the team in steals with 39. Hewitt's conditioning obviously helped Vines regain some of the quickness we saw from him as a Freshman. Vines minutes were important to give Akins a blow, and Vines had 55 assists and 44 turnovers. His offense struggled, however, averaging 4 ppg but only shooting .336 from the floor, .264 from the three and .640 from the stripe. He never did recover his shooting touch he had his Sophomore year, but was reasonably solid bringing the ball up the floor and demanding defensive attention from the perimeter. Vines personified the more scrappy disposition of the entire Tech squad. Since we did not recruit a true PG to replace T.J., it will be interesting to see how we get Akins some rest and who will bring the ball up the floor at those times.

Daryl LaBarrie: LaBarrie was one of the most interesting stories of the year. A virtually forgotten man the previous year, LaBarrie ended his Senior campaign as one of the team's only reliable scorers, and was on the floor at the end of most of the last several games of the season. Not especially athletic nor skilled, Labarrie made hay with creativity. He was especially good in the open court or flashing across the lane with spin moves and runners. When so many of our players went into the tank at the end of the year, LaBarrie's productivity was critical. He finished the year averaging 14.3 minutes per game with 5.6 ppg and 21 steals. He shot .475 from the floor, .264 from three and .700 from the stripe. We should be happy to have seen what LaBarrie could do before he finished at Tech.

Assessment: Tech played 10 players last season that averaged at least 9 minutes per game. We lose five of those ten players. The 50% of the roster that departs represents 52% of the minutes played, 55% of the scoring, 54% of the rebounding, 50% of the assists, 51% of the turnovers, 86% of the blocked shots and 56% of the steals. These stats are somewhat encouraging in that, apart from blocked shots, the departing kids did not dominate the positive stats. We lose three starters, five seniors including three fourth year seniors and one five year senior. We lose Alvin Jones, a player around whom Coach Hewitt centered our entire defensive scheme, and to a large extent our offensive scheme as well. His absence, along with 50% of the roster, will assure Tech fans a second rebirth of the Tech program in two years.

B. WHO IS RETURNING

Tony Akins, SR, 5'11" PG: While Alvin Jones may have been the most improved player in terms of mental approach and utilization in a scheme, Tony Akins was the most improved in skills development, leadership and overall game. No player exemplified the results of Hewitt's individual instruction better than Akins. As some may recall, Tony Akins actually lost his starting job the previous year because he couldn't hold-up physically over the course of a 40 minute game, succumbing to cramps and other ailments. Akins bought into Hewitt's tough physical conditioning, and he ended up going through the entire year without any of the injuries that had previously nagged him. He tied Alvin Jones with an average of 29.2 minutes per game last year. And Akins was one of the few Jackets that finished the season strong, finishing as the team's leading scorer at 14.5 ppg.

One of the most pleasant images from last season was the team huddling after every time stoppage, and Tony Akins rounding up the troops to discuss strategy and keep the team focused. Not only was Tony Akins the team's point guard, but also was a verbal leader. Akins also displayed a markedly improved ability to effectively finish drives into the paint. His ball handling was steady and his playmaking, while still not exceptional, was improved. Akins improved in most all categories from the previous year: Scoring (14.5 v 11.5), shooting percentage (.440 v .369), three point percentage (.419 v .368), assists (128 v 108), and turnovers (78 v 86). Only foul shooting, rebounding and steals stayed about the same. He had a season high 28 points in wins against UCLA and Maryland. He was consistently good down the stretch run.

Akins' game is quickness. He is a clever ballhandler and has little trouble gaining separation from most defenders. He can be a dangerous three point shooter and now that he has shown more willingness to drive to the hoop, it opens his perimeter game all the more. His enhanced strength and conditioning showcased last season was a tremendous boon to his game. Now he will be the Senior leader of a very young team. He will need to be the steadying influence on the rest of the team. Also, since he is the only scholarship true PG on the roster, he carries tremendous responsibility on his shoulders. His leadership, consistency, playmaking and stamina far outweigh scoring in terms of team needs.

Mike Isenhour, SR, 6'8" C: Perhaps the most memorable image of Mike Isenhour from last season was the TV view of Isenhour elbowing Duke's Mike Dunleavy in the mouth while blocking out in the lane during a free throw. And then the subsequent retaliation by Carlos Boozer trailing the action at mid-court. Isenhour was banged-up last year, but out of necessity, he had to see minutes, 9.1 minutes per game. Since Tech had no one besides Jones taller than 6'7" or heavier than 225 pounds other than Isenhour, Mike had to see minutes, whether he was a High Major talent or not. It is difficult to say whether Isenhour was instructed to be productive or just keep his thumb in the dyke while playing, but the result was the latter. He did not amass appreciable stats aside from minutes.

Besides Ed Nelson, Mike Isenhour will be the beefiest player on the team at nearly 250 pounds, and besdies Aussie Frosh, Luke Schenscher, the tallest. Since the only size standing between Isenhour and the floor are Freshmen, it is likely that Mike will see some minutes. It will be interesting to see if a full off-season program with the staff will mean some production during those minutes, or just more thumb in the dyke stuff. So far, Mike hasn't shown outstanding athleticism or refined skills, and is not especially well suited to a run and press style of play, but the ACC is a long way from the Air Force Academy, from which he transferred three years ago. Either way, he could be an important player in such a free-subbing system. If we have learned nothing else from last season, it is to never underestimate a scrapper. And Mike Isenhour is definitely that, just ask Dunleavy.

Clarence "Mo" Moore, SO, 6'4" G/F: Moore broke a metatarsal bone in his foot during a pre-season pick-up game and was, essentially, lost for the year. Moore was likely a player on which Hewitt was counting to start. The success of last season was all the more amazing considering we lost a starting athletic player off a roster with such poorly regarded talent. Except for some uninspiring minutes in six games, Moore was lost for the season.

Moore played Center in high school and was struggling to find a position his Freshman year. He had a brief run of games in which he started and put up some very good numbers. Still, Moore has to make the transition from a front court power player to the perimeter. No matter where he plays, he will be a strong player. At 225 pounds, and a leaper, Moore is an unusual physical talent, one that should thrive in a run and press style.

Moore has a vibrant personality and besides Akins and Isenhour, has the most time in the program of the scholarship players. So, Moore may be expected to show some leadership ability. In some ways, Moore will be like watching a freshman in that we just don't know what to expect of him. How much has he developed his perimeter skills? How will he contribute in the run and press when healthy? He has the physical tools to challenge for a starting spot at wing forward. One of the things to look forward to is to see how Mo does under Hewitt.

Marvin Lewis, SO, 6'3" 2G: Marvin Lewis was the highest touted of the incoming Freshmen last season and committed to Cremins' program, but stayed on after the transition. He came in with the reputation of being a fine outside shooter and being fundamentally sound, but not especially athletic. The scouting on Lewis was accurate.

Marvin Lewis deserves so much of the credit for the success of the Jackets last season. He was a true freshman that secured a starting position with the club and maintained that throughout the season because of his fundamentally sound play. More amazing was the fact that Lewis played out of position the entire year. At 6'3", Lewis was undersized for a forward at the ACC level. Yet, Lewis finished the season as the second leading rebounder on the team, with an average of 4.5 rpg. Like Babul, Lewis did much of the little things to help the team win. He didn't do a lot of things to make himself stand-out, but also didn't make a lot of mistakes. He was fourth on the team, averaging 26.1 minutes per. However his scoring average did suffer once he hit the ACC slate. He had 44 assists and only 41 turnovers. He had 28 steals. He led the team in free throw percentage at .868. He shot .414 from the floor and .374 from three (the same percentage as Halston Lane).

Lewis' stats will likely surprise some fans because his game is quiet. He does not feature outstanding athleticism as his game is not above the rim. Lewis did bring the ball up the floor a few times last year, and this might foreshadow a potential role to back-up Akins? We will need someone other than Akins to step-up and relieve the lone Tech PG of some of the ball handling responsibilities.

Lewis' confidence in his shot suffered once going through the ACC conference (not unheard of in this league), so that made his game look ineffective. But he still finished as the team's fourth leading scorer at 8.7 ppg. Lewis will have to make some adjustments in his game to be productive in the ACC. He will have to be able to learn to get himself open against the athletic defenders in the ACC. Also, Lewis' game is a bit mechanical in that he is a thinker and not necessarily instinctive. It makes his game fundamentally sound, but not fluid. Lewis needs to find a feel for the flow of the game, and establish his niche in that flow.

Regaining his three point range will be very important for the Jackets. Besides Akins and Lane, Lewis is the only player with noted three point shooting ability. The incoming freshmen class has size and athleticism, but none are noted three point marksmen, although there is hope in this regard for Barry Elder.

With so little returning experience, it is important for the sophs on the team to step-up and solidify the wing spots. If they do not produce, we are left to depend on True Freshmen, and that is not optimal, no matter how talented the freshmen may be. With the free subbing system of Hewitt, perhaps designating starters is not of paramount importance. However, Lewis will have competition for the starting spot at 2G. His off season program and three point touch may determine whether he wins that spot.

Halston Lane, SO 6'4" F/G: It is not difficult to understand why scouts and recruiters passed on Halston Lane, despite the fact that he scored over 2,000 points in High School. Lane does not pass the high Division I look test. At a stocky 6'4", Lane just didn't have the perimeter skills or quickness of your prototypical ACC guard, nor did he have the size or hops of successful wing forwards. But Lane's abilities translated surprisingly well at the college level.

If Marvin Lewis is a thinking man's player then it is Halston Lane that is the complimenting instinctive player. Lane showed a free flowing offensive game, and when he was feeling it, he could dramatically influence the outcome of the game. Lane had his coming out party against Kentucky, where he managed the unlikely, keeping Dick Vitale's attention on any one topic for more than thirty seconds. Lane came from nowhere to scorch the Wildcats for 23 points, and was Tech's leading scorer that night. Halston would have some similar nights with similar results for the team: Lane scored 21 points in Tech's overtime upset of Wake Forest, scored 17 points in the win at Clemson and scored in double figures in three of four conference games in the second half of the season.

Getting hot and scoring was what Lane did best as he finished the season averaging 17.1 minutes, 6.8 ppg and 2.4 rpg. He shot .414 from the floor, .374 from three and .755 from the charity stripe. Lane would frequently get himself going by scoring inside. Despite limited leaping ability, Lane shows some crafty moves down low, and the ability to finish while taking a hit, reminiscent of Matt Harpring in that regard. He has long arms and very big hands, palming a basketball easily. Streaky from outside, Lane has a quick release on his lefty jumper, and when he gets it going, it is pretty to watch.

But Lane's transition to the overall college game was not as smooth as Lewis'. Consistency was an issue, and when he didn't get hot, he tended to disappear. Like so many of his team mates, his shot disappeared at the end of the year. Also, his instinctive play sometimes left him lost on defense. But Lane plays hard and is a tough, scrappy player. His offensive game gives one visions of Wally Sczerbiak. Lane has a ways to go. He needs to improve his quickness and his ball handling as well as his defensive awareness and consistency on offense.

Once again, Lane is one of those sophomores that is so important to the Tech program so in need of experience on the floor. Should Lane be in a position to step-up and be a serious scoring threat for Tech at the wing, then the team will benefit.

Robert Brooks, SO 6'7" F/C: Robert Brooks was Paul Hewitt's first high school recruit for Tech. Brooks was a nice find for Hewitt, A 6'7" High School basketball player that scored less than 10 ppg his Senior year wouldn't seem to bode well for a productive ACC career. However, Robert Brooks was a pleasant surprise. At only 205 pounds in weight, Brooks was not well suited for banging inside, yet that is what he was frequently called upon to do. Brooks is a live body, thin and springy, and with an enthusiastic attitude. Despite his less than impressive high school resume, Brooks still managed 14.3 minutes per game, scoring 2.8 ppg on 50% shooting from the floor and 3 rpg. He did not show many developed moves down low, but his shot wasn't bad looking. Brooks was not especially skilled but his athleticism and attitude give him a huge upside. He will be a player that will be fun to watch just how far he can develop during his stay at Tech.

C. WHO IS COMING IN

Is'mail Muhammed, FR 6'6" F: Is'Mail was the first commitment of last year's recruiting class. Muhammed played at the small Atlanta Mohammed High School against lessor competition. But that is not where Muhammed made a name for himself. Muhammed, along with fellow recruit Barry Elder and a long list of division I prospects, played for arguably the best AAU squad of that summer, the Atlanta Celtics. As the team mowed down the competition, Scouts began to notice Muhammed. Of note was that Muhammed began taking more and more playing time away from the more highly regarded Greg Tinch. Muhammed's relentless defense, rebounding and ferocious drives to the hole spearheaded Is'mail's rise up the recruiting rankings, resting finally in the Top 50.

Muhammed's game is not finesse. This is a physically strong young man with exceptional athleticism and leaping ability. His skills are not refined. He is not known for accurate shooting or even good foul shooting. What he is known for is strength, intensity, rebounding and a mean drive to the cup. Think along the lines of a bigger Bruce Dalrymple. He will not be at a physical disadvantage against other wings he faces, and should have the ability to bother even the most athletic players on the defensive end. In a true run and press scheme, players like Muhammed should be able to thrive.

Barry Elder, FR 6'4" 2G: Soon after Ismail Muhammed committed to Tech, Barry Elder, Muhammed's AAU team mate on the Celtics, followed suit. Like Muhammed, Elder's stock rose considerably with the exploits of the Celtics last summer. Many considered Elder the 'glue' of that team, as he did all the little things to help the team win. Elder is a big, strong player for his position, but Elder is also skilled. He has a good handle and a decent shot. But, again, it is Elder's size, strength and enough athletic ability to defend and rebound along with his willingness to do the nitty gritty that might be his most attractive traits. Hewitt commented that Elder might be utilized at the point to spell Akins. In short, Elder is a versatile, jack-of-all-trades guard, very much in the vein of Brian Oliver.

After the summer, Elder became "The Man" for his High School team and was successful in that role, becoming a Big Time scorer. However, he broke a bone in his foot the last game of the season. Whether the bone has completely healed or not has not been reported up to this writing.

Ed Nelson, FR, 6'8" PF: Finally Tech replaces Jason Collier with a true scoring Power Forward. Nelson doesn't pass the look test for many scouts. He is burley and not cast in the mold of the gazelle-like PF's that are so in favor these days. And he represents an interesting choice of players for a coach implementing the run and press. Nelson was listed as weighing 245 pounds and having a massive upper body and big arms.

But Nelson can run, but just may not look like a gazelle doing it. And what Nelson was able to do was to be consistently productive against top competition. Nelson can score and rebound. He has excellent footwork in the post and has good moves. His upper body strength gives him an advantage in establishing and holding position down low. He is effective in transition despite the fact that he looks like he shouldn't be effective in transition, but he is not a leaper. He provides beef to bang in the post and is an effective rebounder, and those traits will be important in countering some match-up difficulties in the past. Nelson's rebounding ability is important for this year's team. He will likely be a starter and focal point of our offense as a freshman.

Anthony McHenry, FR, 6'6" G/F: Signed out of High School as Anthony Vasser, he changed his name to McHenry. McHenry built a reputation for being exceptionally skilled for a player his size. Some scouts believe that McHenry has a good enough handle to play some PG, but McHenry himself has said that his favorite position is on the wing. At the time of his signing a year ago, McHenry was 6'6" and still growing, so it is conceivable that he is now significantly taller. Coach Hewitt has noted the young man's ability to rebound, which is a common theme in this year's recruiting class. Considering that Tech was out-rebounded last season and has lost the ACC's top rebounder to boot, it is easy to see why Hewitt would be looking for a class that is strong on the Boards.

McHenry is also noted as a strong student. The knock on McHenry coming out of High School is that his productivity did not match his size and skills. McHenry did not put up big time numbers which leaves the question of whether he has the on the court assertiveness to become 'The Man.' However, even if McHenry's temperament lends more to being a complementary player on the floor, that does not mean he won't be valuable or develop a different approach once on campus. In either case, Tech fans shouldn't expect 20 ppg from McHenry as a freshman.

But McHenry's size, ranginess and skills make him an intriguing prospect. If he has not grown then we may see him being Akins back-up at the point, although it remains to be seen if such a long player can keep the jitter-bug guards of the ACC in front of him. If he has grown significantly, we may see him in the front-court. On defense, he may present match-up problems for the opposition, and a player with such attributes could be a real weapon in a run and press scheme.

Luke Schenscher, FR, 7'0" C: When Mike Southall made the decision to self-destruct last Spring, it was a huge blow to Tech. Southall was recruited in the fall to replace Alvin Jones at Center, and Southall had the size and athleticism to be a physical presence to compete with ACC big men. But Tech was forced to repeal Southall's scholarship offer leaving Tech without a Center or any player taller than 6'8". And finding an unsigned Center in the late spring is like finding fresh cherries at your grocery produce section in December. Long gone.

Perhaps no single accomplishment of Hewitt's regime better demonstrate his overall effectiveness as a coach than landing Luke Schenscher. He landed a seven footer like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. The Jacket coach went to the ends of the Earth to find his man. And the result was a team that looked like it was going to have a big hole in the middle now has a seven footer there instead.

How good is Luke Schenscher? That is a question that is not yet possible to answer. He played at the top level in Australia. But, he has not been scouted to any degree near to that of the rest of our signees, and he has not played the same competition anyway. We know he is tall and thin. He has a reputation for being skilled, with an excellent complement of offensive moves, soft shooting touch and good hands, ability to pass and shoot the jumper and hook. In some respects, we are describing the opposite of Alvin Jones, who was an athletic defensive specialist with a poorly developed offensive game.

It will be interesting to see how Schenscher holds-up in the intensity of ACC play. He is an important recruit because he is our only true Center, and only player taller than 6'8". The very fortunes of the team may depend on his readiness. An offensively skilled big man can be a real headache for the opposition to defend. If he can shoot and pass, he can play the high post to clear the lane and free up Ed Nelson to operate and open offensive rebounding opportunities. He may also draw double teams, which could free up the perimeter game. Having a seven footer in the paint is seldom a defensive liability, however, he will be facing players that more athletic and strong than he is likely to be accustomed. And teams may try to neutralize him by beating him down the floor in a running attack.

But whether he is ready or not, his game sounds best suited for the half-court game. Hewitt frequently employed half court schemes to best utilize Jones and keep he and Akins fresh longer. Should we expect similar schemes to best utilize Schenscher offensively? If Schenscher is ready to impact, expect to see a lot of half-court sets.

PROSPECTUS

Tech fans face as many, if not more, questions surrounding this year's team than last year's. Last year we knew who was going to do it, we just didn't know how they were going to get it done. We now have a better idea of what we want to do, but who is going to do it?

Tech replaces half of its scholarship players from last season. The team has lost five seniors and returns with only two scholarship seniors and no juniors, leaving 82% of the scholarship roster composed of freshmen and sophomores. There have as yet to be any bold claims by Hewitt regarding this year's team and post season play, but he may after he has seen the freshmen play a little. But if senior experience played a big part in last year's success, we can't replace that this year. On the other hand, we have six players who have been through a full season of Paul Ball, so in that regard, we do have more experience returning in terms of running Hewitt's schemes.

If Tech loses Senior leadership this season, the team will have enhanced athleticism and overall size to attempt to compensate. The five freshmen that replace the five lost Seniors represent around a 15 inch net gain in height for the team. And Clarence Moore returns to increase Tech's rotation by one athletic player. Ed Nelson brings to Tech a true power forward, and one with scoring ability to boot, a commodity completely absent on last year's team. Robert Brooks will also have ample opportunity to realize his considerable upside.

Marvin Lewis, a 6'3" natural shooting guard, had to play out of position at wing forward last season. Perhaps Jon Babul was the closest to being a true wing forward at the High Division I level, but he was needed at PF. The return of Mo Moore and the additions of Is'mail Muhammed and Anthony McHenry give the team much more versatility, depth and athleticism at the 3 (wing forward) spot. And Halston Lane also returns at the wing, perhaps to further his propensity for explosive offensive outbursts. Even Barry Elder has the size to play either wing spot.

The most glaring hole on the squad is the absence of a proven back-up point guard. Besides Akins, no other scholarship player is a natural point guard. Hewitt and scouts have made enough comments for us to perceive who the potential point back-ups will be. Marvin Lewis occasionally brought the ball up the floor last year. He is a smart and fundamentally sound player, and if he has worked on his handle in the off season, he may be the most likely candidate to spell Akins. Much has been made of Anthony McHenry skills for a player his size. Hewitt has made the comment that he felt McHenry had the skills to play the point. His size intrigues many Tech fans in that capacity. But the size mismatch can work both ways, as he may have trouble keeping the small jitter-bug guards he faces in front of him. How much time McHenry sees at the point may depend on just how much he has grown. He has expressed his preferred position is at the wing. Finally, Hewitt noted that Barry Elder was recruited as a "combo" guard. Obviously our coach holds out hope that Elder will also be groomed to see some time in the lead guard role, much in the same vein as Brian Oliver more than a decade ago.

The hope is that at least one of those players will adequately get the job done. But needless to say, an injury to Tony Akins would leave coach Hewitt the unenviable task of trying to win without a true point guard.

Another team weakness, rebounding, will have to be addressed. Hewitt did so with this recruiting class, and he approached it by assembling a class with across the board rebounding ability instead of seeking only front court rebounding specialists. In fact, some of the better rebounders of the class are the wing players like Elder and McHenry. Versatility will be a theme for Hewitt and expect multiple players at multiple positions crashing the boards. Will the results be better than last year?

Another interesting question regarding this year's squad is whether we shall see more run and press. Hewitt utilized his personnel quite well last year, employing mostly half court sets to keep his two primary offensive and defensive weapons on the floor, Akins and Jones. This year's team is more athletic and one player deeper. Will that equate into more run and press?

Seeing more run and press is likely, but this year's team may still be a half-court team. The reason is that the roster is still a bit schitzophrenic in that half of the roster seems best suited for half-court game and the other half better suited to the running game. For instance, behind Schenscher and Ed Nelson, Tech is thin and small in the front court. Yet, Schenscher and, to a lesser extent, Nelson are best suited to the half-court game. Not that these players can't run, but they most certainly can't run for 40 minutes. The strength of Schenscher's game is offensive skill, which begs for half court sets. Nelson too is a skilled post-up banger that could do a lot of effective work in the half-court game. The only other player on the team taller than 6'7" is Mike Isenhour, and he is most certainly a half-court player. Marvin Lewis and Halston Lane are also players that seem well suited for half-court sets.

On the other hand, players like Mo Moore, Robert Brooks, Is'Mail Muhammed, Barry Elder and Anthony McHenry seem well suited for an all out run and press approach, all athletic and rangy. In that light, it may seem reasonable that we see distinct units, with Schenscher, Nelson, Lane and Lewis representing a team that challenges the opposition in the half-court. Nelson and Schenscher using their skills down low, and Lane, Lewis and Akins stretching the defense to the three point line. Then Hewitt could utilize a run and press unit to fatigue the opposition with Brooks, Moore, Elder, Muhammed and McHenry.

Although that makes sense, Hewitt's substitution patterns last season indicate that he mixes and matches personnel freely, not showing much tendency towards employing units. Perhaps the personnel on this team will dictate otherwise. However it goes, if we go to a predominantly run and press scheme, we will go small. How much half court versus run and press we see will likely be determined by the readiness of Luke Schenscher at Center. If he can handle the physical play at the ACC level, we will see a lot of half-court sets to keep him on the floor.

Whatever scheme the team plays, can they win? Of the 11 scholarship players, 5 are true freshmen. They have talent, but none have yet shown what they can do at this level. That makes one aspect of the season easy to predict. Freshmen show the strong tendency to be inconsistent. Good one game, invisible the next. The more the team depends on the true freshmen to carry the load, the more mixed results we are likely to see. Akins is the proven commodity, but he is only one player. Therefore, the sophomores are the key to the season. Marvin Lewis, Halston Lane, Robert Brooks and Mo Moore will decide which direction the team will go. The Jackets need for at least two of those players to have improved enough to secure starting positions. The program needs all of them to be significantly better and more consistent than what they were last season. Their experience is important, and we need their skills and productivity to advance quickly, otherwise we are left to the talented freshmen.

The freshmen will play key roles also, likely two will start. More than two true freshman starters in the ACC might be a bad prognostic indicator for reaching the Big Dance. But if we see two Frosh, two sophs and Akins as our starters, then achieving the record we saw last year is a viable possibility, if not a likelihood. The fact that the team has one additional athletic player to the rotation (Mo Moore) could also be very significant. Overall, Hewitt has more size, athleticism and depth to work with this year than last. Still, we are very shallow in terms of front court depth, especially in regards to size (although even there we are in better shape than last year). The loss of Jones means that opposing teams will change their offensive attack against us. Opposing offenses are likely to look more efficient against us this year, especially in a half court game. However, when we do press, we should have more athletic bodies to make a greater impact there. And we should be a sharper offensive team next year. Look for us to average more points per game this season than last.

And the final factor is that in college ball, good coaches tend to have good teams. It is relatively easy to break down a team on paper, but fans know from last year how problematic that device can be. We have lost some valuable elements but have gained some as well. Have we gained more than we have lost? Quite likely.

Watching young players develop is a fun aspect of cheering for any team. Rebuilding mode is a great time because expectations are moderate and there is great hope for the future. We can be satisfied with seeing merely the seeds of success. But there is little doubt that Hewitt has winning in mind and will push his cast to that end. With so many new and unproven cast members, it is difficult to project which way it will go. But it is fun to ponder the possibility that our coach somehow makes it work, hiding the weaknesses (youth, front court and PG depth) and exploiting team strengths (and what might they turn out to be?), and having it all come together in a way that results in wins. To start the year, fans may want to hold the expectation that we will have a similar record this year as last, and sneak into the Tournament. Such an expectation should be tempered by the understanding that it could slide significantly either way depending on the improvement of the sophomores and the readiness of key freshmen.