|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 22, 2019 12:50:14 GMT -6
Your narrative of the ending last year may be faulty. I don't think Moses and Persons were nearly at their best, that hurt. And the two returnees were not full strength and showed rust from their layoff. You scoff at depth as an issue, but lack thereof took a toll. We'll miss the seniors, have some learning to do early but will be better for having numbers this year Your right about Persons and Trey not being at their best. What you do not do mention is Why? They should have been better than they had been.. You know go out with a bang instead they(more so Trey) went out with a whimper. Was that coaching? I don't think Trey was mentally or physically 100%. Persons was overworked all year, but given his mentality I don't think coaches failed in motivating. What coaching move was available to take the load off?
In the end the team just could not shoot and I am don't think there was much of a coaching answer to that deficiency. They needed Ish and Mallers every game and rarely got that. Nobody else stepped up. In terms of working around the problem, the staff tried every variation in the offense, and part of the problem is they rarely had a full roster to see if some change would have worked. It's not easy to make big changes at best.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 22, 2019 13:09:27 GMT -6
Your right about Persons and Trey not being at their best. What you do not do mention is Why? They should have been better than they had been.. You know go out with a bang instead they(more so Trey) went out with a whimper. Was that coaching? I don't think Trey was mentally or physically 100%. Persons was overworked all year, but given his mentality I don't think coaches failed in motivating. What coaching move was available to take the load off?
In the end the team just could not shoot and I am don't think there was much of a coaching answer to that deficiency. They needed Ish and Mallers every game and rarely got that. Nobody else stepped up. In terms of working around the problem, the staff tried every variation in the offense, and part of the problem is they rarely had a full roster to see if some change would have worked. It's not easy to make big changes at best.
Well all this might be true some of it certainly is but who recruited these guys who can not shoot. Who recruited a team with holes at key positions.. Injuries happen to all teams so that was part of it but good teams find a way.. |
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 22, 2019 13:29:50 GMT -6
And good coaches adjust to what they have.
|
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Oct 22, 2019 13:30:15 GMT -6
IMO, as stated before, I feel we finally have depth (i.e.-football team). While we will miss Moses and Persons, I feel the depth will solve the problem and we will end up a better team than this past season - a significant improvement. Book it!
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 22, 2019 13:39:33 GMT -6
Your narrative of the ending last year may be faulty. I don't think Moses and Persons were nearly at their best, that hurt. And the two returnees were not full strength and showed rust from their layoff. Yes, that reminds me. I think I heard at one point towards the end of the season that BSU was the only team in the nation that was being afflicted by this unique, freak phenomenon that they called "injuries". And research into the NCAA archives could not find any teams in the past whose entire roster wasn't at 100% health towards the end of a season. So, that's definitely a huge justification for that next-to-last place finish, and the face plant down the stretch. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 22, 2019 13:51:55 GMT -6
I don't think Trey was mentally or physically 100%. Persons was overworked all year, but given his mentality I don't think coaches failed in motivating. What coaching move was available to take the load off?
In the end the team just could not shoot and I am don't think there was much of a coaching answer to that deficiency. They needed Ish and Mallers every game and rarely got that. Nobody else stepped up. In terms of working around the problem, the staff tried every variation in the offense, and part of the problem is they rarely had a full roster to see if some change would have worked. It's not easy to make big changes at best.
Well all this might be true some of it certainly is but who recruited these guys who can not shoot. Who recruited a team with holes at key positions.. Injuries happen to all teams so that was part of it but good teams find a way.. You asked whether we should blame coaches for Moses and Persons being less than they might have been, I answered that. But then I doubt many teams are really good who have two good players come up short, and few teams do well when they can't shoot...
As far as recruiting goes, I strongly favor recruiting good shooters. To me more important than other factors. But size, athleticism, basketball smarts, shooting, toughness and other factors are obviously desirable. Need a good mix to be a good team. Don't need everything. We definitely did not have everything. I'd have liked more athleticism last year, more shooting, more size. But even so, we were a good team when we shot well and had all hands on deck.
We agree we were not a good team at the end of last year. If your theory is that there was a way and we weren't good because we did not find that way to overcome problems, I am not so sure. I disagree on your theory that somehow a good team can always overcome problems.
Far more often good teams turn out to be teams that did not have everything and somehow did not face a critical problem and did not need to overcome it. Almost always a good team has an Achilles's heel.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 22, 2019 13:55:09 GMT -6
And good coaches adjust to what they have. I agree there, that is how to measure good coaching. The question is whether they can always adjust well enough to overcome a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 22, 2019 14:14:12 GMT -6
And good coaches adjust to what they have. I agree there, that is how to measure good coaching. The question is whether they can always adjust well enough to overcome a problem. To be quite honest I feel James is too stubbornly married to his metrics and analytics and percentages and all that to “feel” what his team needs. He’s not able adjust quickly enough or well enough because, numbers. I watch the video of his talks with his team postgame after wins and he is devoid of any passion or emotion. It’s just “we talked about making so and so go left” or, we knew if we forced x amount of turnovers while keeping ours to x and making them shoot x % from 15 feet, etc etc” we’d have a chance to win and you guys did it, good job.” No inflection in his voice. By itself as a reinforcement of “playing the right way” that’s fine, but when it’s THE victory talk it just seems to drain any emotion and excitement out of the win. The guys just sit there placidly stone faced and thyme when whit is done there’s a half hearted “1,2,3 team!” And they go shower. Whit truly cares about his players and that’s what we want, but he’s just not a motivator. He can’t sell it. He can’t go crazy with his guys (watch the football post games”). He can’t get worked up in the sideline when it’s needed. He doesn’t light fires. Far too often we played listlessly or without purpose because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Oct 22, 2019 14:44:35 GMT -6
1) I don't believe Whitford knows more about analytics or metrics than an other coach, I think he is a dimwitted guy who likes to project an intelligence he doesn't possess.
2) This team plays "listlessly" because that's the way they practice, I'll bet Whitford had never once thrown a guy out for just going through the motions or not paying attention. It's part of the reason we are consistently in the bottom 10% in turnovers.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 22, 2019 16:32:56 GMT -6
1) I don't believe Whitford knows more about analytics or metrics than an other coach, I think he is dimwitted guy who likes to project an intelligence he doesn't possess. 2) This team plays "listlessly" because that's the way they practice, I'll bet Whitford had never once thrown a guy out for just going through the motions or not paying attention. It's part of the reason we are consistently in the bottom 10% in turnovers. Have you actually seen any practice or spoken to the coach to back up these assertions?
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 22, 2019 16:52:38 GMT -6
I agree there, that is how to measure good coaching. The question is whether they can always adjust well enough to overcome a problem. To be quite honest I feel James is too stubbornly married to his metrics and analytics and percentages and all that to “feel” what his team needs. He’s not able adjust quickly enough or well enough because, numbers. I watch the video of his talks with his team postgame after wins and he is devoid of any passion or emotion. It’s just “we talked about making so and so go left” or, we knew if we forced x amount of turnovers while keeping ours to x and making them shoot x % from 15 feet, etc etc” we’d have a chance to win and you guys did it, good job.” No inflection in his voice. By itself as a reinforcement of “playing the right way” that’s fine, but when it’s THE victory talk it just seems to drain any emotion and excitement out of the win. The guys just sit there placidly stone faced and thyme when whit is done there’s a half hearted “1,2,3 team!” And they go shower. Whit truly cares about his players and that’s what we want, but he’s just not a motivator. He can’t sell it. He can’t go crazy with his guys (watch the football post games”). He can’t get worked up in the sideline when it’s needed. He doesn’t light fires. Far too often we played listlessly or without purpose because of it. That style is so effective on the recruiting trail though. HORSEPOWER! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 17:21:17 GMT -6
I’m still a little foggy about this sudden acquisition of basketball depth that I’m reading on here. I’d swear that last year was going to be the culmination of digging ourselves out of that terrible Taylor abyss. I went back to posts of October ‘18 and read the praises of our “significant depth” that we finally possessed. Now I am reading that it is THIS year y’all had been talking about all along......  |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 22, 2019 18:35:22 GMT -6
I’m still a little foggy about this sudden acquisition of basketball depth that I’m reading on here. I’d swear that last year was going to be the culmination of digging ourselves out of that terrible Taylor abyss. I went back to posts of October ‘18 and read the praises of our “significant depth” that we finally possessed. Now I am reading that it is THIS year y’all had been talking about all along...... You're confusing "this year" and "next year". Try to stay with me here. You see, in October 2018, last year was still next year since no games had been played yet. We will ALWAYS have depth next year. It's only this year that depth is a problem and an excuse for the losing that's going on. Right now, this year is still technically next year....so we have plenty of depth this year (i.e. "next year"). In a couple months, this year will be just this year and it will be pointed out by those in the know that, sure, depth is a problem this year, but next year (i.e. 2020-21) we will have tons of depth. But then when 2020-21 actually rolls around and becomes this year...…. Got it? |
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Oct 22, 2019 19:09:40 GMT -6
IMO, as stated before, I feel we finally have depth (i.e.-football team). While we will miss Moses and Persons, I feel the depth will solve the problem and we will end up a better team than this past season - a significant improvement. Book it! I just don't see it. We have major holes at nearly every position, we will not be a good shooting team, we've never played good D, we don't have a true PG, we don't take care of the ball, we are terrible at 50/50 balls. I just don't see how this team/ program will miraculously be a contender. Perhaps the MAC will be so bad that we can fall bass ackwards into it? |
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Oct 22, 2019 19:15:29 GMT -6
1) I don't believe Whitford knows more about analytics or metrics than an other coach, I think he is a dimwitted guy who likes to project an intelligence he doesn't possess. 2) This team plays "listlessly" because that's the way they practice, I'll bet Whitford had never once thrown a guy out for just going through the motions or not paying attention. It's part of the reason we are consistently in the bottom 10% in turnovers. You know I generally agree with you on Whit, but I do think he is a good metrics guy. The problem is, one-dimensional coaching is never good, but lifeless numbers-based coaching as the foundation of your program is especially bad. I personally think our players are bored to death and/ or too busy thinking to just be athletic and react to situations. Think about how stymied we are by the changes from other coaches or just how rare it is for us to come up with a 50/50 ball. Whit's system requires thinking over instinct, and I don't think that's a good thing. Thinking should be for practice, while instinct and athleticism must take over in games. |
|
