We have heard/read that it was a failed experiment, that Young gave him the reins but then we read the dreaded analyis "it was not a good fit." My first question was it really not a good fit? We often say that after the fact when things go wrong. For example, when a regular student transfers, they often say "Alabama wasn't a good fit" when more often than not it was not about not being a good fit, it was more about something going wrong, i.e. the student got sick, got home sick, failed, struggled, etc. To me, Avadalas could have been a good/fine fit. My other question, is the fact that he went to UNC or if he does well at UNC, more a sign that he was not properly used or properly coached? This is not a broadside at Coach Young and his staff.... But it is a legit question, it won't be just that UNC thinks they can fix him. Did we give him too much freedom to start the year? Player can play in a system and Malone will have a system. It won't be just be let Avdalas do whatever he wants. So, if he does well at UNC, will it be more about that he was not used properly here or not coached well not to avoid the things that made VT "not a good fit" And was his "failed experiment" simply a failure only because the entire team failed to get to NCAA? We know that injuries affected that, with Tyler Johnson being out so much. Imagine we don't have injuries. Imagine we don't implode on some last seconds of game...and we win some more games to make the NCAA. Would just a team-drive success then dictate that it was not a failed experiment? Because he was sat for the final stretch of minutes against Wake Forest...does that mean it was a failed experiment or that he could have played and helped but the coach made a decision?