|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 3, 2020 1:10:51 GMT -6
In that respect he learned everything isn't easy and you can't always get what you want.
Or maybe the problem was setting an unrealistic goal without a clue what it involved.
It appears he now has more modest academic goals.
Can't tell as much about his thinking on basketball. Wanting to "play his game" and not change much could be the same problem there.
He's never been quite satisfied in basketball given the number of coaching changes he has sought.
Several here seem to assume it was all just bad coaching. Another bad coach who couldn't use Kroft's skill as it should be used.
We'll see what the next guy can do. I doubt it will be exactly what Kroft wants.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 3, 2020 6:27:40 GMT -6
Sounds like college is a little tougher than he thought it would be. Architecture is a difficult major, and BSU has one of the top programs in the country. If he changed his major twice, he may not have the mentality for college.
I doubt he's going to find it any easier at a different school. Unless he finds a diploma mill willing to take him on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 6:58:25 GMT -6
Trading Architecture career for a professional basketball career is a darn good gamble that has been successfully implemented by many.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 3, 2020 8:11:25 GMT -6
He may never have really been all that gung ho on architecture to start with. Kids at this age are liable to have very little idea what they really want to do.
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Apr 3, 2020 9:38:34 GMT -6
He needs to try an NAIA school where he may be good enough to dictate the style of play to fit his game. Otherwise, he will have to adjust his play to fit the style of play to fit the team and the coach. Sounds like he is a little arrogant and needs to come down to earth a little.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 3, 2020 9:55:47 GMT -6
But was Whitford making the highest and best use of the player? If he’s truly better in the midrange game then no Whitford was not. And Whitford often does not make the highest and best use of talent. Not at all saying the player gets to choose, but it is readily apparent this coach is more heavily tied to “the data” than he is feel for the game, or feel for moments within games. Which again leads me to believe the evaluation of Kroft during the recruiting process was flawed.
|
|
|
Post by sag on Apr 3, 2020 11:43:24 GMT -6
I don't know of any coach recruiting for the midrange game; forcing jumpshots is a defensive goal. I don't know what kind of conversations they had during recruitment and during the year. I do not remember seeing Ish, for example, being discouraged from taking jumpshots and floaters if he beat his man. I also had the sense that more was wanted from Mallers, for instance, in this regard but he passed up a lot of opportunities. Sellers was starting to do this only in his last year. But to be good at the midrange, you have to be able to create your own shot, be a threat from 3 and to drive, and Kroft would have had to prove the ability to score all three ways. Jeremy Harris for Buffalo comes to mind. Teams are not relying midrange players for their offenses as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 3, 2020 11:51:25 GMT -6
But was Whitford making the highest and best use of the player? If he’s truly better in the midrange game then no Whitford was not. And Whitford often does not make the highest and best use of talent. Not at all saying the player gets to choose, but it is readily apparent this coach is more heavily tied to “the data” than he is feel for the game, or feel for moments within games. Which again leads me to believe the evaluation of Kroft during the recruiting process was flawed. Whitford recruited him to drive to the basket and shoot the 3 which he could do.
IF he is better mid range right now which depends on how much you trust his self assessment, AND if he could be better in other areas if he applied himself as coaches wanted, that is consistent. Why does the coach change his offense to suit the player? If the player is recruited to do something and can do it if he just applies himself, but doesn't, he doesn't play.
This discussion is premised on Krofts assessment of what he is best at now and that he couldn't doesn't want to change. Why are we accepting that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 12:24:06 GMT -6
Architecture is a difficult major, and BSU has one of the top programs in the country. Not so much anymore.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 3, 2020 12:33:36 GMT -6
I’m thinking beyond Kroft. I’m thinking of all players Whitford has had that seem to be round pegs being fitted into square holes. And I’m also thinking of guys shooting 3’s who shouldn’t have been in most situations. And I’m thinking of playing a guy like Moses who ‘could’ have given us a decent post up game and more face ups around the paint but was instead asked to run the offense out of the high post. Yeah he was an adept passer. He also made a a lot of bad passes and often wasn’t truly part of the offense. Just as Teague too often was not part of the offense around the rim. Im thinking of guys like Sellers sort of being forgotten. Him especially after being so damn good as a freshman.
Again, I knew Kroft would end up a transfer risk from day 1. I don’t care that he left and I don’t think he’s got a whole lot of credibility vs a coach. But his comment about whits philosophy and “statistically proven” is right up whits alley. That’s fine to a degree but I also feel whits absolute reliance on analytics prevents flexibility where/when it’s needed. And given the shortcomings in his record it seems to bear that out.
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Apr 3, 2020 12:46:16 GMT -6
I don't know of any coach recruiting for the midrange game; forcing jumpshots is a defensive goal. I don't know what kind of conversations they had during recruitment and during the year. I do not remember seeing Ish, for example, being discouraged from taking jumpshots and floaters if he beat his man. I also had the sense that more was wanted from Mallers, for instance, in this regard but he passed up a lot of opportunities. Sellers was starting to do this only in his last year. But to be good at the midrange, you have to be able to create your own shot, be a threat from 3 and to drive, and Kroft would have had to prove the ability to score all three ways. Jeremy Harris for Buffalo comes to mind. Teams are not relying midrange players for their offenses as far as I know. Your post is exactly right IMO. Kroft does not have the ability to create his own shot. His dad thinks he's NBA talent and he's projecting that attitude to his son. Meanwhile, he's not even MAC talent. Sorry for the harshness, but we are all beating around the bush on this.
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Apr 3, 2020 12:46:49 GMT -6
I’m thinking beyond Kroft. I’m thinking of all players Whitford has had that seem to be round pegs being fitted into square holes. And I’m also thinking of guys shooting 3’s who shouldn’t have been in most situations. And I’m thinking of playing a guy like Moses who ‘could’ have given us a decent post up game and more face ups around the paint but was instead asked to run the offense out of the high post. Yeah he was an adept passer. He also made a a lot of bad passes and often wasn’t truly part of the offense. Just as Teague too often was not part of the offense around the rim. Im thinking of guys like Sellers sort of being forgotten. Him especially after being so damn good as a freshman. Again, I knew Kroft would end up a transfer risk from day 1. I don’t care that he left and I don’t think he’s got a whole lot of credibility vs a coach. But his comment about whits philosophy and “statistically proven” is right up whits alley. That’s fine to a degree but I also feel whits absolute reliance on analytics prevents flexibility where/when it’s needed. And given the shortcomings in his record it seems to bear that out. This post is also true, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Apr 3, 2020 13:31:31 GMT -6
I don't know of any coach recruiting for the midrange game; forcing jumpshots is a defensive goal. I don't know what kind of conversations they had during recruitment and during the year. I do not remember seeing Ish, for example, being discouraged from taking jumpshots and floaters if he beat his man. I also had the sense that more was wanted from Mallers, for instance, in this regard but he passed up a lot of opportunities. Sellers was starting to do this only in his last year. But to be good at the midrange, you have to be able to create your own shot, be a threat from 3 and to drive, and Kroft would have had to prove the ability to score all three ways. Jeremy Harris for Buffalo comes to mind. Teams are not relying midrange players for their offenses as far as I know. The argument that most coaches are not recruiting for a mid-range game is true, but that doesn't mean there aren't players who aren't adept at that game (Harris, as you note). And a coach who allows sub-par shooters jack it up from 3s might be advised to use more of a mid-range game. I'm sure that coaches opposing BSU last year would have listed forcing threes from Teague, Acree and Thompson as defensive goals. Regarding Mallers, I would hesitate to project your own feelings onto those of the coaching staff. Surely, if he were not playing the game the coaching staff wanted, he would have seen reduced playing time. I mean most of us think, "Oh, Whitford must want a dominant big man," but nothing in his recruiting or style of play would really indicate that.
|
|
|
Post by sag on Apr 3, 2020 13:52:33 GMT -6
You're probably right about projecting re: Mallers because my only reasoning is that he seemed to lack confidence in the lane after muscling himself some space. Persons was another player who made a lot of those "tough twos." But he earned them.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 3, 2020 14:19:46 GMT -6
Hitting 54% in the mid range game is every bit as statistically efficient and valuable as hitting 36% threes. Whitford, despite his shortcomings, appears to know how the numbers work. I suspect that the issue with Kroft wasn't so much that he was a mid-range oriented player as much as that he wasn't all that good at it. Whitford may well have been right not to play Kroft very much, and also right to steer him away from an offensive style where he would never have been very valuable towards a offensive style where he MIGHT have been somewhat valuable
As I have already said, my issue with Whitford and Kroft is that he just wasn't that good of a recruit, and a real recruiter at BSU would never have had a scholarship to burn on him. Only the nuttiest jock-sniffers here were ever very excited about Kroft. Whitford probably did as well with Kroft after signing him as any coach could have, but the thing is that in college basketball good recruiting = success and poor recruiting = failure with only rare and extraordinary exceptions here and there to keep things somewhat interesting.
Recruiters recruit and recruiting has consequences.
The more I think about it, the more I believe any coaching search should involve soliciting the opinions of 17 year old boys. Ability to appeal to 30-65 year old administrators gets you hired, but doesn't do jack shit for making you a success. I think the 17-year-old boy test would have deep-sixed both the Taylor and Whitford hires and saved us all 13 years of shit results. Obviously you have to weigh other factors as well or you would end up hiring a succession of rap artists.
|
|