A Tale Of Two Teams

docbutler

Member
Clearly, in the world of college basketball, there are two kinds of teams....first, we have teams that play in clever mode at all times. They tend to exploit their opponent's weaknesses, never appear to play foolish, they play as a cohesive unit, and never ever give the game away. They play aggressively and as a unit on defense, while racking up assists and open looks for their offenses. They usually display balance on both ends of the court, while rebounding with intensity and good position as well. They are well versed in the world of basketball theatrics: flopping, lower body hip checks, etc. They rarely take ill-advised shots and always always work for an open shot.
Then you have the teams who operate in the foolish mode. They allow constant penetration of the center. They allow easy kick outs and open looks for established three point shooters. They perpetually fail to maintain good position on the men they are guarding. They never take a charge. They hit airspace on every attempted shot and never consequently box anyone out. They miss assignments and frequently switch badly on pick and rolls. They fail to identify opponents who offer the best chance to hurt them. They frequently lose defensive balance and react late when help is needed. They commit foolish fouls. The interior is often open and they tend to apply pressure much too far from the basket. They frequently lack a real understanding of what the opponent is actually trying to do. They don't communicate.
Surely, watching the Red Storm play at San Francisco last night left little doubt about which category we fit into. I actually turned this game off. I couldn't stand watching the stupidity any longer.
I remember being pretty critical of Louie at the end of his coaching reign. I felt his style of basketball lacked imagination and excitement. I thought that basketball, as taught by guys like Carrill and Carnesecca, was a dinosaur with the introduction of the shot clock. Particularly with the modern athlete along with his speed and high flying athleticism. But one thing that Coach Carnesecca rarely ever did. And that was "lose to a team with inferior talent". Coach Lou would bore you to death, but he would sit back in solid, unforgiving defense...and pass the ball until someone got an open and uncontested look. That formula resulted in a pretty good won-loss record.
What St' John's is currently doing on the court is nothing short of ridiculous. Last night we took a kid, who was 0-2 from three point range, and turned him into John Stockton. I'm waiting for Coach Lavin and staff to tell Dom Pointer and the other guards to back it up. WE NEED CONTAINMENT...NOT A STEAL! Allowing this kid to go one-on-one to the rim five or six times is sickening. I'm tired of watching them being beaten off the dribble for penetration. I'm tired of the kick outs and open threes. I'm tired of the half-hearted double teams and the resulting backdoors. I'm tired of the blown assignments. We are pretty long Steve! Back it up and watch how fast our defense improves. How many open threes from the corner are we going to surrender anyway?
Certainly, the reffing in the game last night didn't help much...and was a factor in breaking us down. The entire San Francisco team was guarding by using their hands..allowable apparently by west coast referees...and the tech on Dom at the end was more an expression of frustration than anything. But I still believe that smarter basketball would have won this game. Once again, we played right into their hands. I believe that we had a superior team out there. We simply failed to address their strengths and weaknesses with intelligence.
 
Well said Doc. I couldn't agree more. I got sick of watching the game too and shut it off. I kept wondering when they were going to shut down the open three point shots and they never did. They never adjusted to what SF was doing. It doesn't seem as though Coach is getting thru to these kids.
 
Clearly, in the world of college basketball, there are two kinds of teams....first, we have teams that play in clever mode at all times. They tend to exploit their opponent's weaknesses, never appear to play foolish, they play as a cohesive unit, and never ever give the game away. They play aggressively and as a unit on defense, while racking up assists and open looks for their offenses. They usually display balance on both ends of the court, while rebounding with intensity and good position as well. They are well versed in the world of basketball theatrics: flopping, lower body hip checks, etc. They rarely take ill-advised shots and always always work for an open shot.
Then you have the teams who operate in the foolish mode. They allow constant penetration of the center. They allow easy kick outs and open looks for established three point shooters. They perpetually fail to maintain good position on the men they are guarding. They never take a charge. They hit airspace on every attempted shot and never consequently box anyone out. They miss assignments and frequently switch badly on pick and rolls. They fail to identify opponents who offer the best chance to hurt them. They frequently lose defensive balance and react late when help is needed. They commit foolish fouls. The interior is often open and they tend to apply pressure much too far from the basket. They frequently lack a real understanding of what the opponent is actually trying to do. They don't communicate.
Surely, watching the Red Storm play at San Francisco last night left little doubt about which category we fit into. I actually turned this game off. I couldn't stand watching the stupidity any longer.
I remember being pretty critical of Louie at the end of his coaching reign. I felt his style of basketball lacked imagination and excitement. I thought that basketball, as taught by guys like Carrill and Carnesecca, was a dinosaur with the introduction of the shot clock. Particularly with the modern athlete along with his speed and high flying athleticism. But one thing that Coach Carnesecca rarely ever did. And that was "lose to a team with inferior talent". Coach Lou would bore you to death, but he would sit back in solid, unforgiving defense...and pass the ball until someone got an open and uncontested look. That formula resulted in a pretty good won-loss record.
What St' John's is currently doing on the court is nothing short of ridiculous. Last night we took a kid, who was 0-2 from three point range, and turned him into John Stockton. I'm waiting for Coach Lavin and staff to tell Dom Pointer and the other guards to back it up. WE NEED CONTAINMENT...NOT A STEAL! Allowing this kid to go one-on-one to the rim five or six times is sickening. I'm tired of watching them being beaten off the dribble for penetration. I'm tired of the kick outs and open threes. I'm tired of the half-hearted double teams and the resulting backdoors. I'm tired of the blown assignments. We are pretty long Steve! Back it up and watch how fast our defense improves. How many open threes from the corner are we going to surrender anyway?
Certainly, the reffing in the game last night didn't help much...and was a factor in breaking us down. The entire San Francisco team was guarding by using their hands..allowable apparently by west coast referees...and the tech on Dom at the end was more an expression of frustration than anything. But I still believe that smarter basketball would have won this game. Once again, we played right into their hands. I believe that we had a superior team out there. We simply failed to address their strengths and weaknesses with intelligence.

Well stated.
 
I had endless arguments with friends about Lou. They all said he same thing: If you want your 20 wins and a first round NCAA exit, then Lou is your man. He couldn't coach zone (his words), so his teams never played it. You always got the same look form Looie's teams. He also had no answer against Georgetown in our glory year, trying the same things that resulted in defeat three times in a row. Yet he was everything you said. Louie's style was to teach a tough man to man, find a PG that played safely to limit the turnovers, recruit one star every 4 years or so to run the offense through, and never force things. It resulted in a style that had games against inferior talent closer than they should have been. But his players played with poise down the stretch, rarely losing the end game. When he had 4 eventual NBA players, he went to the final four, and beat the National Champions three times that year. That Louie won so many games with only subway tokens as a travel budget is very impressive.

Times have changed. College basketball is bigger money now, and more competitive than during Louie's time. Lou never had to build a team from scratch. There always seemed to be upperclassmen to build upon. What does this have to do with Lavin's team? He was given the task of completely rebuilding a program. He recruited, at least on paper, more talent in one class than we ever had before. Better put, he recruited more athletes. Athletes with holes in their games. Holes that can be filled, to a point, through several years of teaching and experience. But the NBA won't give you years. Your best athletes, as long as they fit size wise into a NBA mold, are gone before you can build on what you teach them. Moe this past year, and possible Sampson after this year. Teams will start luring Obekpa soon enough. If Sanchez qualifies, he may play 18 games and bolt. It is obvious that a lot of the basics are lacking. Passing the ball, boxing out, patience, shooting from beyond the paint. I never saw a Louie team play matador like yesterday. Yes, Louie's teams sometimes got schooled by great players. But not guys like Doolin. That was embarrassing. But look at the tools to build upon. It's just one game, on the road, cross country, at that.Plenty of Big East teams have issues this season. Let's not forget that the warning signs of this loss were there. After enough close battles with the likes of the Cross, Florida whatever, and a school in Jersey I never heard of, what's the big shock. There is improvement coming. It may take until next season. But great talent, if they listen and work hard, will take you where a San Franciso and Chris Doolin can never go.
 
Clearly, in the world of college basketball, there are two kinds of teams....first, we have teams that play in clever mode at all times. They tend to exploit their opponent's weaknesses, never appear to play foolish, they play as a cohesive unit, and never ever give the game away. They play aggressively and as a unit on defense, while racking up assists and open looks for their offenses. They usually display balance on both ends of the court, while rebounding with intensity and good position as well. They are well versed in the world of basketball theatrics: flopping, lower body hip checks, etc. They rarely take ill-advised shots and always always work for an open shot.
Then you have the teams who operate in the foolish mode. They allow constant penetration of the center. They allow easy kick outs and open looks for established three point shooters. They perpetually fail to maintain good position on the men they are guarding. They never take a charge. They hit airspace on every attempted shot and never consequently box anyone out. They miss assignments and frequently switch badly on pick and rolls. They fail to identify opponents who offer the best chance to hurt them. They frequently lose defensive balance and react late when help is needed. They commit foolish fouls. The interior is often open and they tend to apply pressure much too far from the basket. They frequently lack a real understanding of what the opponent is actually trying to do. They don't communicate.
Surely, watching the Red Storm play at San Francisco last night left little doubt about which category we fit into. I actually turned this game off. I couldn't stand watching the stupidity any longer.
I remember being pretty critical of Louie at the end of his coaching reign. I felt his style of basketball lacked imagination and excitement. I thought that basketball, as taught by guys like Carrill and Carnesecca, was a dinosaur with the introduction of the shot clock. Particularly with the modern athlete along with his speed and high flying athleticism. But one thing that Coach Carnesecca rarely ever did. And that was "lose to a team with inferior talent". Coach Lou would bore you to death, but he would sit back in solid, unforgiving defense...and pass the ball until someone got an open and uncontested look. That formula resulted in a pretty good won-loss record.
What St' John's is currently doing on the court is nothing short of ridiculous. Last night we took a kid, who was 0-2 from three point range, and turned him into John Stockton. I'm waiting for Coach Lavin and staff to tell Dom Pointer and the other guards to back it up. WE NEED CONTAINMENT...NOT A STEAL! Allowing this kid to go one-on-one to the rim five or six times is sickening. I'm tired of watching them being beaten off the dribble for penetration. I'm tired of the kick outs and open threes. I'm tired of the half-hearted double teams and the resulting backdoors. I'm tired of the blown assignments. We are pretty long Steve! Back it up and watch how fast our defense improves. How many open threes from the corner are we going to surrender anyway?
Certainly, the reffing in the game last night didn't help much...and was a factor in breaking us down. The entire San Francisco team was guarding by using their hands..allowable apparently by west coast referees...and the tech on Dom at the end was more an expression of frustration than anything. But I still believe that smarter basketball would have won this game. Once again, we played right into their hands. I believe that we had a superior team out there. We simply failed to address their strengths and weaknesses with intelligence.

Doc I felt the same way watching that game except I tortured myself and watched till the bitter end. One question I have for you. Do you think this happens with Dunlap helping with the x's and o's?? I dont
 
Doc I felt the same way watching that game except I tortured myself and watched till the bitter end. One question I have for you. Do you think this happens with Dunlap helping with the x's and o's?? I dont

Pretty much what was being said, by a few, in the gamethread, doc.

I also kept watching the game, last night. I guess I'm a glutton of sorts. LOL I don't think one can unequivocally said last night's circus wouldn't have happened with Dunlap. Maybe, it would've or maybe, it wouldn't.

Did you forget about St. Bonnie's, Fordham, and, to an extent, Gonzaga (in the NCAA Tournament)? We also had 3-game losing streak in conference play, which was sandwiched in-between our early hot start and a late thrilling finish.
 
Doc what you say has merit. I watched the game and watching the team collapse on a player going to the hoop and watching them consistantly pass it to the wide open man for an easy 3,drove me crazy. I also call that stupid BB. I hope coach is working on that. I too turned the game off before it finished,but it was late.
 
Doc, you rang the bell with a well thought out and written post! I hope to see you on the board more frequently.
 
Clearly, in the world of college basketball, there are two kinds of teams....first, we have teams that play in clever mode at all times. They tend to exploit their opponent's weaknesses, never appear to play foolish, they play as a cohesive unit, and never ever give the game away. They play aggressively and as a unit on defense, while racking up assists and open looks for their offenses. They usually display balance on both ends of the court, while rebounding with intensity and good position as well. They are well versed in the world of basketball theatrics: flopping, lower body hip checks, etc. They rarely take ill-advised shots and always always work for an open shot.
Then you have the teams who operate in the foolish mode. They allow constant penetration of the center. They allow easy kick outs and open looks for established three point shooters. They perpetually fail to maintain good position on the men they are guarding. They never take a charge. They hit airspace on every attempted shot and never consequently box anyone out. They miss assignments and frequently switch badly on pick and rolls. They fail to identify opponents who offer the best chance to hurt them. They frequently lose defensive balance and react late when help is needed. They commit foolish fouls. The interior is often open and they tend to apply pressure much too far from the basket. They frequently lack a real understanding of what the opponent is actually trying to do. They don't communicate.
Surely, watching the Red Storm play at San Francisco last night left little doubt about which category we fit into. I actually turned this game off. I couldn't stand watching the stupidity any longer.
I remember being pretty critical of Louie at the end of his coaching reign. I felt his style of basketball lacked imagination and excitement. I thought that basketball, as taught by guys like Carrill and Carnesecca, was a dinosaur with the introduction of the shot clock. Particularly with the modern athlete along with his speed and high flying athleticism. But one thing that Coach Carnesecca rarely ever did. And that was "lose to a team with inferior talent". Coach Lou would bore you to death, but he would sit back in solid, unforgiving defense...and pass the ball until someone got an open and uncontested look. That formula resulted in a pretty good won-loss record.
What St' John's is currently doing on the court is nothing short of ridiculous. Last night we took a kid, who was 0-2 from three point range, and turned him into John Stockton. I'm waiting for Coach Lavin and staff to tell Dom Pointer and the other guards to back it up. WE NEED CONTAINMENT...NOT A STEAL! Allowing this kid to go one-on-one to the rim five or six times is sickening. I'm tired of watching them being beaten off the dribble for penetration. I'm tired of the kick outs and open threes. I'm tired of the half-hearted double teams and the resulting backdoors. I'm tired of the blown assignments. We are pretty long Steve! Back it up and watch how fast our defense improves. How many open threes from the corner are we going to surrender anyway?
Certainly, the reffing in the game last night didn't help much...and was a factor in breaking us down. The entire San Francisco team was guarding by using their hands..allowable apparently by west coast referees...and the tech on Dom at the end was more an expression of frustration than anything. But I still believe that smarter basketball would have won this game. Once again, we played right into their hands. I believe that we had a superior team out there. We simply failed to address their strengths and weaknesses with intelligence.

Doc I felt the same way watching that game except I tortured myself and watched till the bitter end. One question I have for you. Do you think this happens with Dunlap helping with the x's and o's?? I dont

Dee, is HAS happened with Dunlap helping with X's ans O's? Happened against St. Mary's, Fordham, and others in the last 2 years with Dunlap on board. Kids have bad games. Ucla has losses to San Diego state and Cal Poly with a good X's and O's Howland at the helm. Will take time for our young team to play consistently and there will be some setbacks. We are also missing two potential starters in Branch and Sanchez which certainly doesn't help, but isn't an excuse for stinkers like yesterday.
 
OMG, the OVER ANALYZATION that goes on around here after a loss is downright hysterical.. and pathetic!

It's called Young & Dumb folks... we have a team full of first and second year players. Losses like this happen, especially as MCNPA points out, since we still have not seen two of our better players on the court yet... Get off the ledge folks!..lol
 
OMG, the OVER ANALYZATION that goes on around here after a loss is downright hysterical.. and pathetic!

It's called Young & Dumb folks... we have a team full of first and second year players. Losses like this happen, especially as MCNPA points out, since we still have not seen two of our better players on the court yet... Get off the ledge folks!..lol
welcome back Scotch/Old Red
 
There is an on-going difference of opinion among contributors here on Redmen.com. There is the "young and dumb" school who believe that games like San Francisco and Baylor are attributable to the youth and inconsistency of the team. Those folks believe that time and experience will tend to heal these errors and oversights.
There are those, like myself, that believe that the coaching plan was poor...and that our team was put in a position where winning would have been difficult. I feel like losses in these games were almost mathematical...the plan was inept, and the formula entirely wrong...for freshman or senior. I can't take issue with anyone who points out that freshmen are freshmen. It's a legitimate point of view and certainly has impact on the team's performance.
However, the decision to apply pressure to our opponents guards, five to eight feet beyond the top of the key is a decision made by our coaching staff. Neither Harrison, nor Greene, have great lateral movement. Pointer concentrates on the steal at all times. They cannot contain the opposition's guards that far from the basket. Every aspect of that is a coaching decision. It has nothing to do with youth or inexperience. Guard penetration is chewing up our defense. The proof in my pudding is the six or so layups made by the opponent's point guard yesterday...most right down the middle. And that doesn't even include the multiple drive kick-outs that led to wide open looks for three and other. I'll say it one more time!...CONTAINMENT! Shut down this penetration by pulling in just inside the three point line, while keeping the hands and feet active. The result will be a shrinking of available lanes...and far less scoring opportunities for our opponents. These are coaching decisions...not by definition, a maturing process for our players.
 
There is an on-going difference of opinion among contributors here on Redmen.com. There is the "young and dumb" school who believe that games like San Francisco and Baylor are attributable to the youth and inconsistency of the team. Those folks believe that time and experience will tend to heal these errors and oversights.
There are those, like myself, that believe that the coaching plan was poor...and that our team was put in a position where winning would have been difficult. I feel like losses in these games were almost mathematical...the plan was inept, and the formula entirely wrong...for freshman or senior. I can't take issue with anyone who points out that freshmen are freshmen. It's a legitimate point of view and certainly has impact on the team's performance.
However, the decision to apply pressure to our opponents guards, five to eight feet beyond the top of the key is a decision made by our coaching staff. Neither Harrison, nor Greene, have great lateral movement. Pointer concentrates on the steal at all times. They cannot contain the opposition's guards that far from the basket. Every aspect of that is a coaching decision. It has nothing to do with youth or inexperience. Guard penetration is chewing up our defense. The proof in my pudding is the six or so layups made by the opponent's point guard yesterday...most right down the middle. And that doesn't even include the multiple drive kick-outs that led to wide open looks for three and other. I'll say it one more time!...CONTAINMENT! Shut down this penetration by pulling in just inside the three point line, while keeping the hands and feet active. The result will be a shrinking of available lanes...and far less scoring opportunities for our opponents. These are coaching decisions...not by definition, a maturing process for our players.

I don't disagree doc. I didn't see this game, but in the NJIT we did all the things that you mention after the half. We stopped defending as far out and sliding and chasing sooo much. We stayed in front of our men ans we forced NJIT to take midrange shots or else be swatted by Obekpa. I just don't know why we never got to that point in this one. We are capable of it. I don't have enough info to say, as I never saw the game. We didn't adjust whether it was due to the players, coache or both.
 
There is an on-going difference of opinion among contributors here on Redmen.com. There is the "young and dumb" school who believe that games like San Francisco and Baylor are attributable to the youth and inconsistency of the team. Those folks believe that time and experience will tend to heal these errors and oversights.
There are those, like myself, that believe that the coaching plan was poor...and that our team was put in a position where winning would have been difficult. I feel like losses in these games were almost mathematical...the plan was inept, and the formula entirely wrong...for freshman or senior. I can't take issue with anyone who points out that freshmen are freshmen. It's a legitimate point of view and certainly has impact on the team's performance.
However, the decision to apply pressure to our opponents guards, five to eight feet beyond the top of the key is a decision made by our coaching staff. Neither Harrison, nor Greene, have great lateral movement. Pointer concentrates on the steal at all times. They cannot contain the opposition's guards that far from the basket. Every aspect of that is a coaching decision. It has nothing to do with youth or inexperience. Guard penetration is chewing up our defense. The proof in my pudding is the six or so layups made by the opponent's point guard yesterday...most right down the middle. And that doesn't even include the multiple drive kick-outs that led to wide open looks for three and other. I'll say it one more time!...CONTAINMENT! Shut down this penetration by pulling in just inside the three point line, while keeping the hands and feet active. The result will be a shrinking of available lanes...and far less scoring opportunities for our opponents. These are coaching decisions...not by definition, a maturing process for our players.

Rightly or wrongly, that is not how Lavin plays and not the type of players he recruited. That is not the style of play he sold to them and is selling to future recruits. Funny, we get a million posts about "O-Block-Pa" and Sampson blocking shots but when a team exploits that agressiveness we get a million posts about changing our whole style of play. I would contend that the problems are two-fold and related; poor defensive rotations and trying to steal the ball. I still coach youngsters and the hardest point to get across is that steals are created off the ball, not on it. Anyway, we currently spend too much time on defense scrambling which I believe partly can be related to experience, both individual and team (playing together). And a decided lack of leadership on the court (experience again..). Also, Lavin has been known to be willing to potentially sacrifice early season games if he thinks it will help the team be better in the late season. Finally, we ran into a good team on the road, their point guard had a great game, they shot lights out, but we still made a fine comeback from a significant run. But learning experiences (for players and maybe for coaches) and credit to another team doesn't figure into the equation on this board evidently. Now having said all that I do not give Lavin a pass, obviously he should have backed off Doolin. But change the style of play, no. The answer is to get Greene and Harrison to focus as much on D as they do on O and get Pointer to play smarter, not change our style.
 
Clearly, in the world of college basketball, there are two kinds of teams....first, we have teams that play in clever mode at all times. They tend to exploit their opponent's weaknesses, never appear to play foolish, they play as a cohesive unit, and never ever give the game away. They play aggressively and as a unit on defense, while racking up assists and open looks for their offenses. They usually display balance on both ends of the court, while rebounding with intensity and good position as well. They are well versed in the world of basketball theatrics: flopping, lower body hip checks, etc. They rarely take ill-advised shots and always always work for an open shot.
Then you have the teams who operate in the foolish mode. They allow constant penetration of the center. They allow easy kick outs and open looks for established three point shooters. They perpetually fail to maintain good position on the men they are guarding. They never take a charge. They hit airspace on every attempted shot and never consequently box anyone out. They miss assignments and frequently switch badly on pick and rolls. They fail to identify opponents who offer the best chance to hurt them. They frequently lose defensive balance and react late when help is needed. They commit foolish fouls. The interior is often open and they tend to apply pressure much too far from the basket. They frequently lack a real understanding of what the opponent is actually trying to do. They don't communicate.
Surely, watching the Red Storm play at San Francisco last night left little doubt about which category we fit into. I actually turned this game off. I couldn't stand watching the stupidity any longer.
I remember being pretty critical of Louie at the end of his coaching reign. I felt his style of basketball lacked imagination and excitement. I thought that basketball, as taught by guys like Carrill and Carnesecca, was a dinosaur with the introduction of the shot clock. Particularly with the modern athlete along with his speed and high flying athleticism. But one thing that Coach Carnesecca rarely ever did. And that was "lose to a team with inferior talent". Coach Lou would bore you to death, but he would sit back in solid, unforgiving defense...and pass the ball until someone got an open and uncontested look. That formula resulted in a pretty good won-loss record.
What St' John's is currently doing on the court is nothing short of ridiculous. Last night we took a kid, who was 0-2 from three point range, and turned him into John Stockton. I'm waiting for Coach Lavin and staff to tell Dom Pointer and the other guards to back it up. WE NEED CONTAINMENT...NOT A STEAL! Allowing this kid to go one-on-one to the rim five or six times is sickening. I'm tired of watching them being beaten off the dribble for penetration. I'm tired of the kick outs and open threes. I'm tired of the half-hearted double teams and the resulting backdoors. I'm tired of the blown assignments. We are pretty long Steve! Back it up and watch how fast our defense improves. How many open threes from the corner are we going to surrender anyway?
Certainly, the reffing in the game last night didn't help much...and was a factor in breaking us down. The entire San Francisco team was guarding by using their hands..allowable apparently by west coast referees...and the tech on Dom at the end was more an expression of frustration than anything. But I still believe that smarter basketball would have won this game. Once again, we played right into their hands. I believe that we had a superior team out there. We simply failed to address their strengths and weaknesses with intelligence.

Doc I felt the same way watching that game except I tortured myself and watched till the bitter end. One question I have for you. Do you think this happens with Dunlap helping with the x's and o's?? I dont

It did happen with Dunlap - both as an assistant and as the head coach.
 
Doc has it right. How many top 100 HS players did SF have against ours? We lack leadership. Hopefully Branch will fill the hole.
 
Doc, the only criticism of your post that I can muster is that I wished you used more paragraphs in your presentation.

Other than that, I believe your assessment is 100% correct.


We're seeing, after 1and 1/2 seasons of Lavin Coaching this team that fundamentally they do very little right in playing team BB..I'm very disappointed because I don't see much positive improvement in this team's performance game after game, even against teams like NJIT, Holy Cross,etc. And, we're showing we can't beat good teams at all. Baylor, Murray State, USF

What's of concern here is despite top 100 BB TALENT, we are just not seeing the kind of results that such talent are expected to deliver 2 years into their college careers. Excusing poor play by asserting that Sanchez, Branch will substantially improve results negates the obvious sub standard performance on defense, offense that Lavin hasn't been able to correct.

Not giving up on Steve yet but, much of the discontent with his UCLA teams was the lament he did not achieve the winning results expected of the talented players he recruited. Are we seeing the same thing here at SJU?

I'm not ready yet to make that conclusion but, I am beginning to give some thought to its possibility. I hope I'm wrong but, hope doesn't always spring eternal
 
They also dogged Dlo into distraction, taking him out of the game and frustrating him. We never adjusted to Cody, never tried anything other than sticking Dom in his grille and Cody invariably was able to either dribble penetrate or find the open man, often with seconds left on the clock.

I think the team's going to get better, but I also think they are relying way too much on their athleticism to the detriment of playing solid positional defense. Notice that on some shots we have Chris, Karr and Felix all going for thee block, leaving nobody to box out/rebound?

At least Chris had it right when he said after the NJIT game that they were worried about the trip to SF.
 
The question for this board is: Why isn't anybody talking about the USF game?

And so I propose starting an additional two (maybe three) new threads on the loss complete with a homepage zen diagram assessing how Doolin's assists, layups and haircut were the death knell for the 2012-13 STJ season.
 
a quick two cents.

i was tempted to turn off the game throughout...but stuck it out hoping for the miracle that never came.

looie did lose to inferior talent...pretty often, at that. yes, we went to a post season in every one of his years at the helm. i'll give him that. we played at a high level of mediocrity most of the time.

he rarely recruited with the big boys. during our last final four year all he could bring in was marco baldi. lavin is sort of recruiting with the big boys. we're not bringing in mcdonald's all americans. we're bringing in highly skilled athletes with holes in their game. hopefully, they get better with professional coaching. at this point, they're all flawed. harkless was very inconsistant last year. moe wasn't a top 15 player when he got here...but he was a first round draft pick after his freshman year. would we have lost to murray state/san francisco had moe stuck around for four years? looie had that luxury.

the new players aren't a team yet. no point guard. looie had smart points who stuck around for four years. most of our players have an eye out the door after one or two years. they're looking to make the espn highlight reel as did balamou recently. our three on one breaks end with the man dribbling the ball either going up for the shot or the spectacular over the rim pass for the highlight reel dunk. it's a 50-50 chance we actually make the basket.

i watched dunlap's team lose to the knicks last night. he had an outstanding game plan and a lead at the very end. they lost because of a five second violation...followed a bit later with a gordon travel...followed by a jr smith steal. you can coach your azz off...but the players have to execute. st john's runs nice plays...but they don't execute. it's brick city...even at the foul line at times. it's going for the blocked shot instead of a rebound. etc, etc. it's on the coaches...but you can't bench everybody because they got exposed.
 
Back
Top