I think Henrico has pretty much modeled their D on the Broad Street U defense. Not sure about the other two.
Question
- Thread starter 72Spider
- Start date
Sitting here watching UVA play defense. It's a thing of rugged tough beauty. Mooney needs to become new best friends with Tony Bennett.
Bingo, three of the (not talking about Khwan b/c he can be a great player on D) guys we return who got a lot of minutes are not good individual defenders. TJs the best of the group but doesn't move well enough to guard the guards he often winds up with on a switch.
As UR fan said earlier in this thread our defense has limited the contribution of our freshmen. Too many decisions to be made on switches on each possession. One bad rotation and mismatches occur. Players that have to think rather then react play tense and natural talent is limited. Next year Mooney will have to depend on freshmen more so hopefully the defense will change some so they can contribute sooner and play more freely.
Mooney needs to abandon the old defense. It takes two years to learn it - and other teams have figured it out. Our defense should be one that freshmen can learn rather quickly. Because, if our freshmen can't play next year, we're in a world of hurt. Playing seven-man rotation this year, because the coach thinks nobody else is ready, led to tired players and some losses. Hey coach - did you see how many players Dayton used to wear us down twice this year? You can't play seven players with a 30-second clock. Practice three defenses, then switch when one is not working. Call some timeouts next year. Go back to square one and look at every piece of what you are doing. Coach your big men NOT to miss shots under five feet. Decide on a new way to coach foul shots and coach the players to make more. But, most of all, get a nice skin cream and use it daily - so that your hard head will begin to soften up.
Some history here- Does anyone remember his first year with a senior laden team (Buckner, Steenberge, etc) when he tried to implement his system and they threw the ball around the perimeter for 30 seconds before rushing a shot? I can't remember their defensive effectiveness but the team did lose 17 games. In retrospect he certainly did not adapt to his talent and give those young men the best chance to be successful. It was his way and everything else be damned. This was a character trait that was excused at the time. This is not to say that he is not a good man but commentary on his coaching philosophy. But, based on the Coach's resistance during his tenure to modify his strategy to adapt to his talent (that he recruited) that gives his players the best chance to win, one could argue that if he had been the Allied commander in Europe during WWII, we would be speaking German now!
You got to remember you only know what you've experienced and been trained in yourself. I think Mooney needs to hire a few assistants who have played and coached with different strengths. Hire someone who has been successful with a different D and let them use their expertise. I also like the idea of becoming friends with Coach Bennett.
It seems to me we do a lot of talking about changing our defensive approach. I would argue
that no matter what defensive scheme you play, if it isn't played well it won't matter.
Our scheme worked for years, it just wasn't played well this year.
that no matter what defensive scheme you play, if it isn't played well it won't matter.
Our scheme worked for years, it just wasn't played well this year.
If you were watching the VCU game it took annoucer Jim Spanrkel what two minutes to identify that the switching defense being played by VCU was resulting in mismatches on defense. Cox guarding the point guard for St.J who blew by him and lewis getting posted up by the St.. J. center. But it's taken our coaches how many years?
I remember a football coach telling me one time, he didn't care how successful the spread O was, his teams would never play it. He felt the finesse aspect made the team soft. I wonder how much that concept translates to basketball?
Right on target. Fundamentally people operate within their comfort zone. If we didn't believe that our way of doing business was effective, it wouldn't be our way. Mooney's comfort zone is well established, and he has proven that he will deviate little. As pointed out with the Steenberge / Buckner example, he has done it virtually the same way 11 times with mostly mediocre results.
It seems that he has very little external pressure that would force him to at lease try to make the changes that many feel are needed. Of course, pressuring him to make big changes could work to his disadvantage as well. The chances of overhauling one's system, and then making that new system a great success are slim. If Mooney had the ability to create and implement major adjustments (or effective tweaks for that matter) he would have already done so.
Results without blinders make it hard to argue that Mooney's coaching skill falls in the below average to average range. Over the course of his career, his teams have won slightly more than 50% of their games. If winning 1-2 games and rarely making the NCAA tournament is commensurate with being a great coach, then he is there.
I will be very surprised if he changes much of anything next year either. The overall quality of the players (are they good enough to overcome the mediocre coaching) will determine the teams path just as it has in the previous 11-years. Our optimistic flame has been lit once again by the hope that the incoming freshman are a step above. That is a lot of pressure to apply to a group of freshman, but if it proves to be true then we could be in for a few better years. If not, we will see more of the same until the change is made.
If Mooney does implement alternatives that work out far better next year, I will be the first to say pass the salt so that I can eat my hat. Like most on here, a personal connection to the school keeps me coming back hoping for something better. I would like to return to attending Spider NCAA tournament games on a regular basis.
I said something to this effect a couple of weeks ago. He cannot adapt. We accepted this years ago, when he was first here, but there is no reason to accept it now. He is not a good coach.
From today's RTD article it showed our record since our last NCAA appearance 5 years ago. We have gone 91 & 75 for an overall winning pct. of .55. I'd be curious of what the conference breakdown percentage for us would be. Are you reading, Statman?
I agree with you in that he is not a good coach. Of course there will be some who agree and some who disagree. One poster last week stated that CM is a great coach. Not sure what criteria was used to come up with "great".
The record for his tenure and for the 5 years since NCAA bid is statistically slightly beyond average.
I'll ask the following, hoping everyone can hang up their bias for at least one thread. I will make one important if perhaps controversial assumption, which is that CM inherited a hot mess when he came here and it would have been implausible to get to the ncaas in his first two years.
So is two ncaa trips in 9 years in line with our history or not? The distinction is important which is that we had a brief but very successful Run (5 in 12'years) under one coach from 81-93 but not much else to hang our hat on. Dooley had no trips In 4 years, Beilein had 1 in 5, Wainwright 1 in 3 where his one should probably be handed to Beilein.
So 2 in 9 (or 2 in 11 if you can't forgive the post-Wainwright train wreck) is on par with those since Tarrant (2 in 12). It's more an issue of recency. Are we expecting more than once every 5-6 years? If so, history may not be on our side.
So is two ncaa trips in 9 years in line with our history or not? The distinction is important which is that we had a brief but very successful Run (5 in 12'years) under one coach from 81-93 but not much else to hang our hat on. Dooley had no trips In 4 years, Beilein had 1 in 5, Wainwright 1 in 3 where his one should probably be handed to Beilein.
So 2 in 9 (or 2 in 11 if you can't forgive the post-Wainwright train wreck) is on par with those since Tarrant (2 in 12). It's more an issue of recency. Are we expecting more than once every 5-6 years? If so, history may not be on our side.
Didn't Beilein come in with an inherited mess also? And shouldn't he have gotten one more our last year in the CAA?
No way. Beilein had a strong core of players left over from Dooley, including one of the Stephenson brothers.
Beilein inherited a very good group of players and was still in the caa which I think helped.
I think what im wondering is if we have unrealistic expectations based on history. I was at UR during those great late 80s years but it's been slim pickings in the 23 years since, so wondering if CM is getting a bad rap or just getting it due to inability to be there in last five years.
If you play 32-33 games a year and you have been here 11 years, I would hope that you would be in the top echelon of wins even with a win rate of 55%.
A recap of the coach's record years 3-5 and conference performance are below
2007-8 Richmond 16–15 9–7 T–4th CBI First Round
2008-9 Richmond 20–16 9–7 T–5th CBI Semifinals
2009-10 Richmond 26–9 13–3 3rd NCAA First Round
We hopefully return 2 starters plus Fore and Wood, a current bench that is inexperienced who lack minutes of playing time along with some promising freshman. If we could replicate 2007--8, I think most people here would be estatic! On the other hand, it's sad that the coach is having to rebuild a program that he has had total control over for the past 11 years. I think it speaks volumes!
I think it is a good question to ask, but people will respond saying our increased investment in our program should result in increased results regardless of historical precedent. Perhaps our historical investment in the basketball program should also be looked at as well.
It's very difficult to compare Mooney with his predecessors when it comes to NCAA expectations. Except for Wainwright, they basically all coached in a one-bid league. The A-10 has been a multi-bid league every year since we joined it except for two in the early 2000s. I certainly feel like it's easier for us to make the postseason being in a multi-bid league, but I suppose you could argue that it's harder since there are more good teams, whereas in a one-bid league you only need to be hot for 3 days and you're in.
Beilein inherited a mess in one sense (three really bad seasons) but a lot of talent. Still, taking a senior-laden team that had never achieved anything and most likely was set in its ways and turning it into a Round of 32 team in one year was nothing short of amazing.
I would conclude that even by our old standards, Mooney has slightly underachieved. And when you factor in the increased spending on the program, the arena improvements, the move to a better league and the fact that we made the tournament in two straight years and made a Sweet 16 but completely failed to capitalize on either afterwards, it seems clear that he has underperformed.
Beilein inherited a mess in one sense (three really bad seasons) but a lot of talent. Still, taking a senior-laden team that had never achieved anything and most likely was set in its ways and turning it into a Round of 32 team in one year was nothing short of amazing.
I would conclude that even by our old standards, Mooney has slightly underachieved. And when you factor in the increased spending on the program, the arena improvements, the move to a better league and the fact that we made the tournament in two straight years and made a Sweet 16 but completely failed to capitalize on either afterwards, it seems clear that he has underperformed.
All good input but my real question is do we have an unrealistic expectation of how often we should make the tournament? I genuinely don't know, im trying to parse thru history versus expectations.
It depends what you are assuming the expectation to be. I don't think you can judge us against our past history in a one-bid league, but nor do I think you can judge us against our history in THIS league, because Mooney has been our coach for most of that time.
If the expectation is NCAAs every year, yes, that's unrealistic. I think the floor for us should be two NCAAs every five years, with one or two close calls in other years during that same period. Compare us to other programs with similar assets, similar financial investments, similar histories and in similar leagues, and that seems plenty realistic. By those standards, obviously we are failing.
T great question. My answer would be that I think we should be in the top 100 at least and be in the NCAA or NIT on just about a yearly basis. I don't think that is a pie in the sky expectation. When you throw out the dozens of schools that must win their conference or tournament to get in, then we probably only need to be in the top half of 150 teams or so. Fan2011 would have a good number for that.
Perhaps so Eight. I'm actually not assuming/setting any expectation, that's why im asking. I think conversely that many posters here have a high expectation that isn't aligned with history. But to your point, conditions change that in turn change expectations.
I suppose that technically you are right, being mediocre is better than being lousy. Sorry, I'm not ready to settle.
And since we've been talking about changing defenses, can we also lose the Globetrotter weave?
I can't really set my expectations until someone from UR clearly defines their expectations.
Agreed. I guess I would just say that our current expectations shouldn't be aligned with our history, because so many things have changed. I think at a minimum we should expect to be in the NCAAs as frequently as the average of Dayton/GW/Rhode Island/St. Joe's/VCU/Davidson. Over the past 5 years, off the top of my head, I'd say those six have been to about 15 tourneys, so that's 2.5 every 5 years, or basically every other year.
Seems reasonable. I would maybe eliminate uri and vcu from the list because they don't feel that comparable to ur in a lot of ways but once every three years seems reasonable. Not many a10 teams are going year in and year out except for those who shall not be named.
Similar threads
