|
Post by rgmillikan on Mar 28, 2021 7:23:21 GMT -6
He'd be a big loss since if he returned obviously he'd be the #1 option offensively but I certainly don't see future NBA draft pick at all.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Mar 28, 2021 8:26:55 GMT -6
He is a big "potential" loss, but let's face it: The potential that might exist is never going to materialize, never going to bring about on-court championship level results, unless he gets his head on straight and gets better coaching. Neither of those things is going to happen under Whitford at BSU.
If he truly wants to make the most of the talent he has, he's better served to pick another coach at another program.
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Mar 28, 2021 8:39:51 GMT -6
He is a big "potential" loss, but let's face it: The potential that might exist is never going to materialize, never going to bring about on-court championship level results, unless he gets his head on straight and gets better coaching. Neither of those things is going to happen under Whitford at BSU. If he truly wants to make the most of the talent he has, he's better served to pick another coach at another program. And Whitford would council the players that they should do just that. He has said so in the past. So why they hell would we want him to continue being our coach if the "program" he is building is not worthy of players with potential.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Mar 28, 2021 8:44:40 GMT -6
Or course, it also should be noted that the team was 5-8 with Coleman on the court this year; 5-5 without him.
So for those few games where he just went nuts scoring, there were an equal number or more where he really didn't make a positive difference.
|
|
|
Post by swenocha on Mar 28, 2021 8:54:27 GMT -6
I just cannot back a ''coach'' that has only two MAC tournament wins in eight years. He wants an extension? Why, what has he done to deserve an extension? Give hm a job at the University child care center of changing diapers and hire a real coach...Someone who can explain the motion offense to a group of basketball savvy kids in eight minutes rather than eight years. But... He's almost made the NCAA tournament annually... Just ask Guskey.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 28, 2021 8:58:41 GMT -6
He is a big "potential" loss, but let's face it: The potential that might exist is never going to materialize, never going to bring about on-court championship level results, unless he gets his head on straight and gets better coaching. The head on straight and the coaching are of course related, but he was in a place where his best games showed the system was fine. the coaching part is hard to evaluate. I would want to wring his neck some of the time, but I am very suspect that hard nosed disciplinarian coaching is ever going to be the answer for most plaeyrs. He has to play somewhere with so much talent the player has to toe the line to get on the court. There are kids that see this, straighten out, and others who never or almost never do.
And our expecting players to mature due to some extraordinary coaching is probably just not realistic either. EVERY coach teaches about the same things and continues to struggle with player ego and immaturity. I have not seen any who can give any magic infusion of reality and maturity.
Teague never liked being played where he could do the most good, not until he had one season left and finally saw reality. Coleman may well regret leaving BSU. He moves up in class and tries that crap and he sits. Maybe that will work for him, but maybe he never sees the court the way he thinks he should. Good programs with lots of talent just have the luxury to bench the kids who don't play the way the coach wants. That sometimes works. We could not do that with Teague and with Coleman, most MAC teams cannot.
I think that is now part of the new reality in college with the transfer rule. Players want to step up in competition and get more visibility AND they want to be somewhere they can be the headline act. The two goals don't go very well together.
The transfer rule is going to enable players to go down a notch to get headliner status, and up a notch to get the big stage. But until that head screwed on thing gets solved they really won't achieve success. And with coaches sucking up to the talent constantly it's not going to be the coach that can do much early in careers. Just keep trying as multiple coaches did with Teague.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 28, 2021 9:00:05 GMT -6
Depressing, but maybe the answer is to find the magic talent level of recruit, where this is the best stage for him and he knows it, and they have to struggle and grow up to get time here.
If you can somehow find the mature more talented kid, great. But, that transfer rule may well mean you lose him anyway. The days of player development could be more difficult today, and now produce the result that your investment in time and effort may result in losing the kid.
This rule only helps the big schools in most ways, unless you can excel at getting the kids coming down, and live with their ego. Certainly Palombizio did not come to BSU for development or to be disciplined.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 28, 2021 9:14:35 GMT -6
He is a big "potential" loss, but let's face it: The potential that might exist is never going to materialize, never going to bring about on-court championship level results, unless he gets his head on straight and gets better coaching. Neither of those things is going to happen under Whitford at BSU. If he truly wants to make the most of the talent he has, he's better served to pick another coach at another program. And Whitford would council the players that they should do just that. He has said so in the past. So why they hell would we want him to continue being our coach if the "program" he is building is not worthy of players with potential. It isn't just the player wants to develop his talent, most do. That part about the program being "worthy" is the problem.
Will a player who is very good ever think he could not be better and on top of that be a star on the bigger stage offered?
Depressing truth is that we may want all that potential, even find it, and still get a limited payoff due to the transfer rule. You have to find not only the right talent but find a player "satisfied" with being All-MAC. Maturity and acceptance of reality are relatively rare commodity among HS basketball stars. Almost every program now is seeing transfers as players seek the promised land.
Some moving "up," some moving down, a few parallel moves but the player rarely sees it that way. And many, probably most, not really ever getting what they want. Coleman is not moving up to star status at a top program. VERY unlikely and certainly not unless he finds that heads on straight thing. If he did that he could get everything he wants here.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 28, 2021 9:49:17 GMT -6
He is a big "potential" loss, but let's face it: The potential that might exist is never going to materialize, never going to bring about on-court championship level results, unless he gets his head on straight and gets better coaching. The head on straight and the coaching are of course related, but he was in a place where his best games showed the system was fine.
Oh I see so the system is fine as-long-as the player goes nuts from three. How well did the system work when he had an average shooting night and we got drilled ? Whitford's offense is a joke and so are you.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 28, 2021 9:53:02 GMT -6
Depressing, but maybe the answer is to find the magic talent level of recruit, where this is the best stage for him and he knows it, and they have to struggle and grow up to get time here.
If you can somehow find the mature more talented kid, great. But, that transfer rule may well mean you lose him anyway. The days of player development could be more difficult today, and now produce the result that your investment in time and effort may result in losing the kid.
This rule only helps the big schools in most ways, unless you can excel at getting the kids coming down, and live with their ego. Certainly Palombizio did not come to BSU for development or to be disciplined. You know there is a reason Whitford tends to get kids without many offers. Maybe just maybe it's the only type of kids he can get, and maybe just maybe it's all part of his laziness.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Mar 28, 2021 10:10:06 GMT -6
The head on straight and the coaching are of course related, but he was in a place where his best games showed the system was fine. So you say the system is fine if a player, a guard, shots 62% from the floor and 58% from three, which is what Coleman did in his three best scoring games of the year. I'd say if that's what the system relies on it ain't worth a shit; it's certainly not sustainable by any standard a Whitford coached team has ever achieved.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 28, 2021 11:27:03 GMT -6
The head on straight and the coaching are of course related, but he was in a place where his best games showed the system was fine. So you say the system is fine if a player, a guard, shots 62% from the floor and 58% from three, which is what Coleman did in his three best scoring games of the year. I'd say if that's what the system relies on it ain't worth a shit; it's certainly not sustainable by any standard a Whitford coached team has ever achieved. Your question I am inclined to say yes...
As to the system in general depending on 3PFG I'm not so sure that isn't the current reality. Few teams do not use the 3PFG heavily now.
I don't think the system depends on quite that level of amazing shooting production to be effective. Our best games will rely on good shooting, sure, but I like teams that shoot well from outside. It should open up inside scoring and it did some of the time this year.
Even with rather disappointing outside shooting we had some decent games. And last year without great outside shooting it produced some good games for BSU, including games featuring Teague who was no 3PFG dead eye, and not a great post up player for that matter.
The system generated scoring in the lane without a good inside scorer in enough games I can live without a real post up emphasis. Can't say I like that part completely. My criticism of our play this year is much more that we lacked enough good shooting, and had way too many turnovers, along with not having enough bench in too many games to offset our lack of size.
I also think this team did not play defense as well as the last one. Coleman contributed in that, and in the turnovers. Shooting well will not get him PT at the next stop unless that changes. There is no system that will fix it. Well maybe the old Loyola Marymount system would help...
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Mar 28, 2021 12:45:25 GMT -6
Although I've known this for a while and I'm not even sure why I comment, you are so friggin' far off base it's not even funny.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 28, 2021 17:32:03 GMT -6
Although I've known this for a while and I'm not even sure why I comment, you are so friggin' far off base it's not even funny. There is no doubt most teams use 3's. No doubt we have not had post play, yet have not done nearly as bad scoring in close as we expected both the last two years. No doubt we didn't play great D this year, did defend pretty well last year. Where do we disagree so much?
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Mar 29, 2021 8:33:49 GMT -6
Or course, it also should be noted that the team was 5-8 with Coleman on the court this year; 5-5 without him. So for those few games where he just went nuts scoring, there were an equal number or more where he really didn't make a positive difference. Ah, those pesky facts again...
|
|