"Jimmy's and Joe's"

[8legs]

As I read the board extensively about playing time for Deion and Trey and lack of defense and rebounding and free throws blah, blah, blah I am reminded of the quote we all know "It's not the X's and O's as much as the Jimmy's and Joe's".
We can discuss playing time and strategy alot and we certainly do and I enjoy the differing opinions.
When I look at the rosters/players of the other top tier A-10 teams and compare these guys to ours, I see alot of men against boys. Actually, given the players we have versus the competition, I think our coaching staff does pretty well against the competition.
That brings up the issue which in my mind is the key to Coach's .565 winning percentage here - we simply do not RECRUIT as well as some other teams. Yes, I like all of our guys! Yes, we have tough standards, etc.! But we have not consistently recruited where we have as much depth and talent as some other teams. We have missed on too many scholarships.
No doubt the strategy could be tweaked and some nights we will shoot lights out, but we need more and better Jimmy's and Joe's if we are going to be a contender every year, which seems to be the expectations of many. Otherwise, we will go to the NCAA's every 5 or 6 years. If you look at our current roster I contend we have 3 legitimate A-10 players and 2 who may be in that category given more playing time. That's it.
Hope springs eternal. Bring on Buckingham and Sherrod and, please, a talented big guy or 2 to go with them.
I hope the guys we have decide to go on a "Major League" run.
And I predict that we will play poor defense, we will shoot bricks for free throws, we will play the wrong people too many minutes.....and we will beat VCU twice!

 

[keefusb]

Dude, I used that quote in another thread earlier this afternoon.

 

[8legs]

Dude, I used that quote in another thread earlier this afternoon.

well then, great minds think alike.

 

[fatherspider]

As I read the board extensively about playing time for Deion and Trey and lack of defense and rebounding and free throws blah, blah, blah I am reminded of the quote we all know "It's not the X's and O's as much as the Jimmy's and Joe's".
We can discuss playing time and strategy alot and we certainly do and I enjoy the differing opinions.
When I look at the rosters/players of the other top tier A-10 teams and compare these guys to ours, I see alot of men against boys. Actually, given the players we have versus the competition, I think our coaching staff does pretty well against the competition.
That brings up the issue which in my mind is the key to Coach's .565 winning percentage here - we simply do not RECRUIT as well as some other teams. Yes, I like all of our guys! Yes, we have tough standards, etc.! But we have not consistently recruited where we have as much depth and talent as some other teams. We have missed on too many scholarships.
No doubt the strategy could be tweaked and some nights we will shoot lights out, but we need more and better Jimmy's and Joe's if we are going to be a contender every year, which seems to be the expectations of many. Otherwise, we will go to the NCAA's every 5 or 6 years. If you look at our current roster I contend we have 3 legitimate A-10 players and 2 who may be in that category given more playing time. That's it.
Hope springs eternal. Bring on Buckingham and Sherrod and, please, a talented big guy or 2 to go with them.
I hope the guys we have decide to go on a "Major League" run.
And I predict that we will play poor defense, we will shoot bricks for free throws, we will play the wrong people too many minutes.....and we will beat VCU twice!

I disagree. If Gregg Marshall coached this program and had these same players four/five years ago as freshman, he would be putting a much better product on the court. And we can name a dozen coaches or more and make the same claim. Coaching is far more than X's and O's and one is instilling self assurance and confidence. Besides mooney's deficiencies in X's and O's and recruiting, he is even more deficient at instilling confidence and getting the most out of his players. Great or even good coaches have an ability to make players excel further than just their talent takes them and make the team perform greater As a whole. I don't see that quality in coach mooney.

 

[fan2011]

I disagree. If Gregg Marshall coached this program and had these same players four/five years ago as freshman, he would be putting a much better product on the court. And we can name a dozen coaches or more and make the same claim. Coaching is far more than X's and O's and one is instilling self assurance and confidence. Besides mooney's deficiencies in X's and O's and recruiting, he is even more deficient at instilling confidence and getting the most out of his players. Great or even good coaches have an ability to make players excel further than just their talent takes them and make the team perform greater As a whole. I don't see that quality in coach mooney.

Gregg Marshall gets payed over 3 times what Mooney makes. He is a top 10 coach in terms of compensation, maybe top 5. There are very few teams that wouldn't be better with him as the coach.

 

[fatherspider]

Gregg Marshall gets payed over 3 times what Mooney makes. He is a top 10 coach in terms of compensation, maybe top 5. There are very few teams that wouldn't be better with him as the coach.

He didn't make that money at Winthrop and why would that matter anyway. The point of the initial post was that it's not the coaching but the players. I disagree. I don't care how much money Marshall makes, he is a coach and even with the same players I would guarantee he'd have a much better team than we have now. Should I use Mark Few as an example since he makes less than Mooney than I will. It's the coaching, especially when you have been given 11 years to build something.

 

[urfan1]

Good coaches win with their players, great coaches win with the players they have.

 

[SpiderGuy]

Suare pegs into round holes approach. Players are recruited to fit "the system". What does a coach do if the players recruited don't fit well - 1) hope they transfer?, 2) don't play them? 3) make them role players?4) adapt the system to fit the skill set?

I think we have a classic case to support at least enough of 4) above to give it a try. I just haven't seen that flexibility in the coaching philosophy. For the most part, we're going to live & die by the system we first saw in Year 1.

 

[keefusb]

Well, to be fair to CM, there have seen some very gradual changes over his tenure. For example, the first two or three seasons, we ran a very conventional Princeton-style offense. We had Jer's players who were primarily recruited for his physical, pound it inside system. It was boring and dismal to watch, I had trouble keeping my wife and son awake for the games. As he was able to recruit more athletic, talented players who supposedly fit his system better, our offense became more free-wheeling.

He also played more freshmen back then because he didn't have much choice. But I also think that had a positive development impact on those players who played a lot as freshmen (Gonzo, KA, Geriot, etc.).

But really, other than that, the general approach and philosophy (same defense, extreme loyalty to upperclassmen, 7 man rotation, no emphasis on rebounding, etc.) has remained stagnant.

My expectation of change for this season will at most be a "tweak" here and there, and nothing really new (same starters, same defense, same general philosophies) compared to what we have seen since 2005.

 

[UR Fan 2]

Minutes played help evolve good recruits into great players some of the time. Geriot and KA played almost the whole game from the time they were freshman. By junior and senior year they evolved into a very good and a great player. Terry Allen has made the same evolution as did Lyndsey, K0, and Shawndre.

TD and DT have played a TON of minutes the last 4 years and have not made that same evolution. We need to give JP, PF, and JJ a chance to show what they can evolve into. Watching freshman play is painful. But they don't take the next step unless you give them the chance.

 

[97spiderfan]

Much rather watch freshman play and make mistakes than watch seniors play and be non factors on the court.

 

[SpiderGuy]

Much rather watch freshman play and make mistakes than watch seniors play and be non factors on the court.

Absolutely. It is is baffling. If the seniors aren't getting it done nearly 1/2 in their final year, then it's time to prepare for the future with the younger players. It's not like bells & whistles are going to go off and all at once the seniors are going to morph into players they haven't been for 3 plus years.

 

[fatherspider]

Absolutely. It is is baffling. If the seniors aren't getting it done nearly 1/2 in their final year, then it's time to prepare for the future with the younger players. It's not like bells & whistles are going to go off and all at once the seniors are going to morph into players they haven't been for 3 plus years.

I think the philosophy of the coach though and the admin also, is to ensure at least a mediocre season to seem competent and satisfy the fan base. Mooney prob knows this lineup isn't gonna take him far but they might win 16-18 games where as if he is building for the future after 11 years, not good.