Assistant Coaches
- Thread starter SpiderFan
- Start date
My guess is that with the NCAA tournament still going, that a lot of that will unfold in the coming month or so. Final Four weekend is always a time when coaches head there to hobnob with each other and ADs.
Speaking of the assistants, I caught part of the interview with Marcus Jenkins on one of the coach's radio shows in the final week or two of our season. He was a good listen. He had a good charisma about him and had that sound of a guy that will be a good head coach someday.
Speaking of the assistants, I caught part of the interview with Marcus Jenkins on one of the coach's radio shows in the final week or two of our season. He was a good listen. He had a good charisma about him and had that sound of a guy that will be a good head coach someday.
IMHO, our assistants are doing a really good job. Keep in mind that both Kim Lewis and Marcus Jenkins are relatively new additions. Moreover, it seems that our improved recruiting coincides with the promotion of Kim to assistant coach. Let's see what happens in the next couple of years. Personally, I am looking forward to it. OSC
Fix recruiting, fix our problems. If the current assistant coaches contributed to our recent recruiting uptick they are doing a very good job.
Always here good things about Kim and Marcus. What about Rob Jones? He has been the longest, is associate head coach and I know has his hands in recruiting. We have a good class coming in but the last several have certainly underperformed.
I'm not sure if "fixing" it is what needs to happen – more like "start recruiting better athletes and basketball players who can contribute from day one."
I can't look back at 11 years of recruiting and say that we really nailed it most of the time. We have recruited some very good players, but have we consistently recruited the kind of guys to make our program a top-4 program in this league? No. We need to do something fundamentally different than we have been doing, IMO.
I will give the benefit of the doubt and say that this already happened last year and we are (hopefully) going to see the results with our next two classes.
Hopefully the new recruiting class will be up to the hype. We certainly need that, and if the new coaches have contributed to a step up in recruiting, that's worth a lot.
But what about player development once they come in? I'm not sure our track record is great there, at least lately. Two of this year's graduating seniors never really developed an offensive game, and if anything regressed on defense this year. (And before you point back to recruiting, wasn't Trey a pretty highly sought-after recruit?)
Really, since Harper, can you think of a player whose game grew dramatically from freshman to later years?
But what about player development once they come in? I'm not sure our track record is great there, at least lately. Two of this year's graduating seniors never really developed an offensive game, and if anything regressed on defense this year. (And before you point back to recruiting, wasn't Trey a pretty highly sought-after recruit?)
Really, since Harper, can you think of a player whose game grew dramatically from freshman to later years?
I know a message board is not the place to go for grammar, but man do you have issues with homonyms. Here & Hear. But mostly there vs. their.
you mean besides, Terry Allen, ShawnDre Jones, TJ Cline, Kendall Anthony, Cedrick Lindsey and Darien Brothers?
How 'bout: Dan Geriot, Darrius Garrett, Kendall Anthony, Kevin Smith, Ryan Butler, Kevin Anderson, and, yes, Alonzo Nelson Ododa. Anyone I forgot? All these guys developed under Mooney's tutelage. OSC
By fix, I meant recruit better. I think we are on the same page.
I HEAR you. Mostly the product of typing fast and no editing. I do know the differences though, contrary to what my wife may say.
My point was more along the lines of the defense literally went in the tank this year and with 2 seniors who wouldn't win a HORSE contest against Sisters of the Blind, free throws falling at the rate of half court shots, and none of the freshman that came in making significant contributions, I feel like that falls on the whole staff of course, but I don't think its all related to recruiting. It's development, strategy, coaching, etc that I would think AD Gill would go: "Chris, very disappointing season as I'm sure you would agree, huge step back after 14-15. We like the recruiting direction right now, but you're in a do or die year--make some staff changes since what you have isn't working."
I'm not making staff changes just because we didn't have a good year. evaluate each coach. if there's a problem there, make a move. if not, don't.
Perhaps you missed the "since Harper", as almost everyone you mentioned arrived before him. The core group during the Kevin Anderson era (Anderson, Smith, Butler, Garrett) definitely did improve through their years.
Outside of that group, I don't think the examples you cited support your point. Dan Geriot's worst years for FG%, FT%, and points/game were his junior and senior years (but of course he dealt with a knee injury). ANO never got beyond a one-dimensional defensive player, and sophomore year was his best statistical year for defense. K0 is hard to argue against, but let's not forget he was pretty outstanding from the start -- he averaged 13 points in 25 minutes his freshman year, and 16.4 in 36 minutes his senior year. (I do think he progressed as a leader during that time.)
In one way, the ANO example does point to recruiting over coaching -- had he lit it up over there we could have said that he thrived under another regime, but of course he didn't. (And his FT% went from 80% to 40% -- what are they teaching there?)
Not really sure what any of it means, but with the malaise we saw this year, I continue to question whether coaching is part of the problem.
I posited on another thread that you need 2 of 3 guys per recruiting class to have an 8 man rotation. Let's assume this to be a fair ratio for sake of an argument. Our last several classes (by recruitment year) have insufficiently met that ratio:
Everyone to the left of the slash is a decent recruit, those to he right are unknown or definite misses.
15-16 : none / too early to tell on JJ,jp,KD
14-15 : Khwan / Paul? / dievkoss, smithen
13-14 : SDJ,TJ / MW? / JoshJ, Tim Singleton
12-13 : TA / DT
11-12 : K0 / ANO,TD,Big Luke
10-11 : ced and Dwill / sparrow
09-10 : Brothers / Robbins
So maybe twice in the last seven classes have we had 2 solid recruits in one class (10-11 and 13-14). I'm being generous with The 10-11 group which ended up being a bust their senior year for unfortunate reasons. You could make a weak argument that 09-10 met the standard but Robbins was really a contributor for one year only. Some might argue that TD or DT deserve to be left of the slash, but I think that's a dubious argument.
It's not too late for CM to save 14-15 and 15-16, but that's a long list of consecutive recruiting misses that someone has to be accountable for.
Everyone to the left of the slash is a decent recruit, those to he right are unknown or definite misses.
15-16 : none / too early to tell on JJ,jp,KD
14-15 : Khwan / Paul? / dievkoss, smithen
13-14 : SDJ,TJ / MW? / JoshJ, Tim Singleton
12-13 : TA / DT
11-12 : K0 / ANO,TD,Big Luke
10-11 : ced and Dwill / sparrow
09-10 : Brothers / Robbins
So maybe twice in the last seven classes have we had 2 solid recruits in one class (10-11 and 13-14). I'm being generous with The 10-11 group which ended up being a bust their senior year for unfortunate reasons. You could make a weak argument that 09-10 met the standard but Robbins was really a contributor for one year only. Some might argue that TD or DT deserve to be left of the slash, but I think that's a dubious argument.
It's not too late for CM to save 14-15 and 15-16, but that's a long list of consecutive recruiting misses that someone has to be accountable for.
ANO would be a solid defensive rotational player on a top tier A10 team, I think 11-12 makes the cut. If we recruited players of K0 and ANO's caliber every year we would be consistently very good (1 first team all A10 talent and 1 very solid rotational player a year, we would be really, really good all the time.)
With our unbalanced classes it is tough to have 2-3 good recruits every year. We may have up to 7 players in the 2017 class, more if there are transfers. We would need more than 2 or 3 to be solid recruits if we end up with a monster class like that.
Robbins is my poster child for the confusion of our recruiting. He was really great his senior year, but where was he the other three years? Not good? Not good enough? Still learning our defense? Capable the whole time but neglected by Mooney? Would have been great to get even two years like that from him, but we only got one, and i have no idea where to assess blame for that, but it seems to be a theme with a number of our recruits.
I put ano to the right because he didn't quite live up to his potential and transferred, but fair point. And yes, there is a clear imbalance in years, but the distribution yearly is less relevant than the ratio which is how you get to 8 or maybe 9 contributors.
Also concur with Eight, Robbins is an enigma as are other guys. He had a good senior year but was pretty nonexistent leading up to that. I'm reluctant to blame that on mooney, it is certainly possible if not probable that each year a senior finally proves to be the best option at an open spot vacated by a graduating player.
maybe I'm misremembering, but Robbins was just ok as a senior. not great or anything. he was one of those guys that you get all excited about because you see early rankings and impressive lists of schools recruiting him, but he wasn't great at anything. just a solid all around player. a role player.
I guess I meant "great" in the role he played for our program. I would describe Butler similarly his senior year. Smart, heady, did a lot of things well, great fit for our system and team, winning demeanor, etc. If we'd had 5 guys like Robbins most years, I think we'd be in the tournament most years.
One of the things I've noticed over the last couple seasons is we're not going beyond 7 core guys as our main rotation, I'd like to see that consistently get to 8 or 9 guys so that others are prepared to play if someone goes down and it also gives the younger guys a chance to get some experience under their belt and be ready if they get called on for bigger contributions and moving into their sophomore years. Just like in golf you can spend all your time on the range and practicing, but it will never replicate playing a full 18 on the course.
It could be argued that Robbins was Paul Friendshue (and many others) during his first 3-years. I submit that the way they are being coached (developed) has a lot to do with it.
nothing against the guy, but I don't think we sniff the tournament with 5 guys like Robbins ... unless they're players 7-11 on the depth chart.
Robbins was one of my favorite players, and he did transform himself during his 4 years, whether he did it himself, or the coaches deserved the credit, I don't know. He was primarily a shooter when recruited, and he did play minutes his freshman year. But, by his senior year, he had really added a lot of strength, and as CM stated, he could play any position. His senior year, he personified hustle.
His senior year was his most productive. But, if you look at his junior year, you will see that at the end of the season, he was playing more minutes than Martel, though Martel remained the starter. And, I would take a team with 5 players like Robbins.
His senior year was his most productive. But, if you look at his junior year, you will see that at the end of the season, he was playing more minutes than Martel, though Martel remained the starter. And, I would take a team with 5 players like Robbins.
How do you define "the way they are being coached (developed)"? I see this statement a lot on the board that we fail to develop players but there are many examples of players who developed just fine. I would submit that not all players develop equally, nor do they all develop from a level starting point, so the ceiling on some is lower which perhaps makes it look like they didn't develop.
If one measure of development is "early playing time" then yes, I would agree. This is not something CM does broadly, he seems to select a player and focuses on getting him time. Perhaps you are seeing something different, hence the question.
I did take Robbins senior year over Trey and Deion's every day and Sunday. Smart player, hustle, crafty, did all of the little things. He was a glue guy, every team needs one of those. We sure didn't have one this year.
Since you asked the question, my answer: The players that develop the most are the ones who are playing in the game. One can argue chicken vs egg, but players who are going to be successful have to be getting meaningful minutes. Hence the arguments about playing time (development) for young players. Practice is valuable, not to be totally dismissed, but game time has a lot to do with who becomes a gamer. Practice and games are two very different things.
Example: Shawndre' Jones freshman year he RARELY saw the floor until Lindsey got hurt. Most common was a very few minutes each half (this is memory, not exact stats). Based upon the couple of minutes per game that we were seeing, me and I'm sure others, were insisting to everyone seated around us that this guy needs to be on the floor. You could see what S. Jones had & what he needed. The last quarter of the season he started getting significant playing time (the result of necessity - not the decision of the coach). He had pretty good success for a true freshman. Everyone I know came away impressed with his potential. Minutes during game time (experience & savvy) normally work as a multiplier, which should continue to spur further development.
S. Jones had the same skill and the same potential on the first day of practice. The difference is that the coach chose not to play him during much of the year. If Lindsey had not gotten hurt, S. Jones would have played VERY little and his freshman year would have been virtually wasted on the bench. He wasn't magically transformed as a player when Lindsey got hurt. Had he not gotten the chance (again not the coach's choice), It is certain that he would not have been as prepared (developed) or experienced entering his sophomore year. The cumulative effect on the player and the team is obvious.
S. Jones is by no means the only example. Remember T.J. Cline's first year? His minutes were being restricted by the coach for much of the season. Many of us were screaming that he needed more time on the floor because his potential to be successful was obvious from the first couple of minutes. Did Cline magically improve overnight? Of course not. He had the same skills and the same potential on the first day of practice. He wasn't playing much early because that was the choice of the coach. Cline, like most players, got more & more productive as his time on the floor increased. Look where he is today, and were we expect him to be next year.
Same case can be made for Kwan Fore this season. Fore was playing very little early in the year. When he started getting significant minutes, he suddenly was a solid contributor. And the more he played, (overall, not minute by minute) the better he performed. Did he magically improve over night, of course not. Many of us were screaming for more Terry Allen as a freshman because it was so obvious that his potential was a step above. Mooney chose to bring him along very slowly. The list goes on and on for multiple players during the Mooney era. This year's examples are Friendshue & Pistol. Both looked like they had potential and that they might be able to contribute (some today - more in the future), but they were buried on the bench. Their "game legs" and their season was virtually wasted, and we will never know how much they could have contributed. One thing is sure, they will not be as ready next season as they might have been. Again, the cumulative effect on the player(s) and the team is obvious.
Mooney has always chosen a young player (JJ is this year's example) that he decides will get a few minutes as a freshman. If Mooney chooses wisely (KA, Cedrick Lindsey, Kendal Anthony, etc.) then that person most often becomes a significant contributor because they got to play early and often. If he chooses unwisely (Taylor, Davis, Nelson-Ododa, etc.) then he sets the team up for mediocrity because he has no bench of players with experience and confidence. The pattern has been that everyone not chosen by this coach "is pretty much glued to the bench." They do not get the same chance "in game" to grow and develop. If Mooney stubbornly refuses to abandon his poor choices then the team ends up 16-16. Choosing to develop one player a year is not enough. Too few contributors and lack of bench are in large part the cumulative byproduct of the coach's choices.
Of course players bring somewhat different levels of individual skill to the table when they arrive as freshman. And where one starts on a scale can most certainly impact one's ceiling, BUT, at the major college basketball level ALL of these players can play. If Kevin Anderson, Kendal Anthony and all of the others had sat on the bench for 2-3 years before they got significant playing time, their careers would have been vastly different.
Just to talk specifically about SDJ. SDJ averaged 5-10 minutes a game before Ced got injured and 20-30 minutes a game after the injury. The reason he got so few minutes was because Ced and K0 were so damn good. The best backcourt in the A10, easily. Losing Ced dropped us from NCAA bubble to out of the NIT. It was almost comical how much worse we were without Ced, but that happens when you lose a player who is responsible for 60-70% of your teams offense and also one of your best defenders. Taking any minutes away from Ced and giving them to SDJ made our team worse. That is no fault of SDJ, he was good for a freshmen, but Ced was miles ahead of him.
Sometimes the reason players don't play isn't because they are bad or incapable. Sometimes it is because the players ahead of them are much, much better. Sometimes you have to play to make the NCAAs and not mortgage the current team's success for the future. Ced got hurt, so it didn't work out that year, but if he had stayed healthy we had a very good chance of an at large bid. With SDJ playing significant minutes all season that probably would not have been the case. We were a bubble team with SDJ getting 5-10 minutes (which is enough do develop as a freshmen) and a pretty bad team with him getting 20-30 minutes a game.
As for Khwan (who was playing 20 minutes a game on day 1), maybe he didn't start becoming a solid contributor because he was getting more minutes. Perhaps he developed over the course of the season, became a better player, earned more minutes and produced more in those minutes due to his development. As you said, chicken or the egg?
Last edited:
CM knew Khwan was really good. think only we saw that? he knew it last year. Khwan was getting time day one as a true freshman, and then he got hurt.
I remember people arguing that TJ should start before he actually did. he didn't start for 7 whole games, and he played between 17-23 minutes in 5 of those. but getting the starting spot recognition is really important to a lot of people on this board.
this isn't rec ball where everyone gets to play. be one of the 7 or maybe 8 best basketball players on the team, and CM will play you. if you're #10-13 in practice, he won't. he's not running you out there on game day just to see if you play better under the bright lights.
I remember people arguing that TJ should start before he actually did. he didn't start for 7 whole games, and he played between 17-23 minutes in 5 of those. but getting the starting spot recognition is really important to a lot of people on this board.
this isn't rec ball where everyone gets to play. be one of the 7 or maybe 8 best basketball players on the team, and CM will play you. if you're #10-13 in practice, he won't. he's not running you out there on game day just to see if you play better under the bright lights.
Ok, so basically it's a playing time argument, and I get it. I think as fan2011 pointed out, you don't short a top tier guy (Ced) for a talented freshman (SDJ) unless obligated to (injury) or due to blowout win/loss. I would concur we don't do great giving guys time who need it when the blowout win/loss happens. It would be interesting to know how many minutes of time that equates to each season, I suspect it's not a ton of minutes but I digress.
I think in some respects you also stumble upon a counterpoint to your argument. CM is trying to develop some guys, they may just be the wrong guys. For example, Deion looked promising freshman year, then got injured, and then was somewhat stagnant or even regressed. Probably a bad choice in hindsight, but to your point, you have to invest some time in a guy to see him develop/improve.
I guess it boils down more to what CM's evaluation of talent is. I actually thought he was developing ANO nicely into a 10ppg/7reb/2block guy end of last year and into this year, but that train transferred. Conversely, I think he didn't see quickly enough what Deion's limitations were, although he eventually did.
TJ Cline did an interview with Wes McElroy before the A10 tournament and spoke glowingly about how much he has learned since coming to UR. I tend to believe that this is a genuine statement and testament that CM is good at teaching kids to play, but again, if we aren't doing it with more than 6-7 guys, then that is of course a problem. Unfortunately, only 200 minutes per game to spread around, only 7-8 guys are going to get "developed" in those minutes.
No-one but you said it was rec ball, and no-one but you said development should be a bright light experiment.
So what happens if a coach over-relies on his better players and fails to develop the others? What if something were to not go according to plan? Oh wait, we already know the answer to those questions. That was what this discussion was about, was it not?
I did not say that game time guarantees that a player will turn out to be great. But, one thing is sure, not getting to play will guarantee that a player does not develop into a solid contributor.
Homer, there were a ton of complaints for more playing time for Paul and Jesse. Coach sees them every day and clearly didn't see them as in-the-rotation players who are ready to help us win. yet posters here want to give them game time. I even remember a post where someone "felt bad" for the guys who weren't getting playing time because of all the hard work they put it.
you're right ... nobody called it rec ball. but that sounds like rec ball.
when you're top 7 or 8, you'll play. until then, get back to work.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Charlotte Game (and travel) thread - Wed 11/13 7pm ESPN+
- Latest: brooklyn brownstone
-
-
-
