Coach Anderson's recruiting article

"Great players make great coaches"

LOL oh god, too soon coach. In all seriousness though it is an interesting point that now we can sell the family culture and stress development which actually may happen unlike the previous 2 administrations. A coach who can develop players well each year is a coach who doesn't need to rely on top 25 classes every year. Would be very refreshing to see real development, real team play, a deep bench, and turning on the jets in the closing minutes of close games watching the opponent tire out. Also, when's the last time we clearly got better and better as the season went on? The only teams I've seen thus far have been all over the place...sometimes doing decent in regular season but then flopping in the BET. Rankings do matter to an extent, but I will agree with coach that they don't measure heart.
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=359502]"Great players make great coaches"

LOL oh god, too soon coach. In all seriousness though it is an interesting point that now we can sell the family culture and stress development which actually may happen unlike the previous 2 administrations. A coach who can develop players well each year is a coach who doesn't need to rely on top 25 classes every year. Would be very refreshing to see real development, real team play, a deep bench, and turning on the jets in the closing minutes of close games watching the opponent tire out. Also, when's the last time we clearly got better and better as the season went on? The only teams I've seen thus far have been all over the place...sometimes doing decent in regular season but then flopping in the BET. Rankings do matter to an extent, but I will agree with coach that they don't measure heart.[/quote]

It's very clear that CMA is trying establish a certain culture here. Combining that with players suited specifically for his style play. I have absolutely no problem with this and it's much better than the haphazard recruiting strategy of the past staff. CMA and staff seem to have a Lasor focus.
 
IMO player development is overblown.

Certainly SOME players improve end to end over their collegiate years. How much a coach has to do with that is questionable.

The coaches that have the CONSISTENTLY have the greatest success in college ball are the one that recruit 5 star talent that are one or two and done, and with the inertia that comes with success they can restock their roster consistently with similar talent.

Guys who build successful programs also recruit guys for specific roles, guys that fit their system. Think of Boeheim with the 3-2 defense - tall wings that are athletic and mobile that can cover the corners. Both Mullin and Lavin teams were always short on length, and both signed the best available talent without regard to fitting a system. It doesn't mean the guys they signed wouldn't have been, but especially with the elusive hard to find big men, we came up short in all areas. Hopefully CMA is not just looking at talent, but talent that fits the style of play he wants to coach.
 
Speaking of bigs, not sure why it's still so difficult to find solid ones. Why does it feel this way regardless of the coach for the past 10 years? UC freaking Irvine had that 7'4 guy or whatever he was. There are tons and tons of low D1 players who fit the 6'10+ 230+ bill and several in D2 where Xavier went for Hankins who is good although not that built. I just can't believe we can't send out feelers and have a few of them bite. They'd get all the playing time in the world. Steere isn't coming until December and even then what if he gets hurt? It seems we always have 1 real big and relying on 1 always bites us hard in the end.

Beast, I disagree...look at Jay Wright getting kids from Sacred Heart and Fordham and making them look like 5 star guys. Look at Mark Few getting some 3 star kids and doing the same consistently. I always go back to the Nova example of Pacshall not being able to hit a 3 to save his life early on...then suddenly he's a huge 3 pt threat by the time he's a senior which forces defenses to respect it. I don't think we've ever had that kind of improvement from freshman to upperclassmen in around 10 yrs. Can't tell you how many times I look at guys killing us with 3's on other teams and see they're a 3 star lightly recruited kid. Remember Bowling Green's kid? He was a beast. They also had some good bigs. Player development is massive. I'd say it doesn't matter only if you get top 10 kids every year like UK and Duke but beyond that it certainly matters.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=359516]Beast, I disagree...look at Jay Wright getting kids from Sacred Heart and Fordham and making them look like 5 star guys. Look at Mark Few getting some 3 star kids and doing the same consistently. I always go back to the Nova example of Pacshall not being able to hit a 3 to save his life early on...then suddenly he's a huge 3 pt threat by the time he's a senior which forces defenses to respect it. I don't think we've ever had that kind of improvement from freshman to upperclassmen in around 10 yrs. Can't tell you how many times I look at guys killing us with 3's on other teams and see they're a 3 star lightly recruited kid. Remember Bowling Green's kid? He was a beast. They also had some good bigs. Player development is massive. I'd say it doesn't matter only if you get top 10 kids every year like UK and Duke but beyond that it certainly matters.[/quote]

Who was the Villanova transfer from Sacred Heart? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't recall. Several hoop heads knew Eric Paschall had the talent to play at a high-major, so by him providing solid play at Villanova wasn't a big surprise to many.

By the way, Paschall has never been better than 35% 3-point shooter in his career. He shot 31.5% his freshman season at Fordham and 35.6% his junior season at Villanova (he shot 34.8% last season). So, he's always shown the ability to hit from outside, and he's never totally been a reliable deep shooter. I recall there were points during last season where he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. He was streaky more than anything.

I do believe in player development, and there are programs where it seems players get better on many occasions. Clemson's football team certainly comes to mind.
 
Its a combination of getting talent and filling needs w team players. A coach isnt going to win coaching up 2 star talent. But he also wont win with a team of Rysheed Jordens either.
 
Last edited:
I think developing players is one thing, but mor importantly is scouting of the talent and landing kids who have upside and work ethic. Grabbing a random group of players to develop doesn’t always work well. Scouting the right guys regardless of ranking, who can and will develop is a skill required by good staffs and imho not overrated at all when coupled.

I look at UConn under Jim Calhoun and he was able to develop a ton of players, ranked and in ranked. He developed a bunch of bigs who weren’t incredibly highly ranked or very raw out of Hs and won a ton with lots of different types of players.

I’m sure CMA wants to and will landed highly ranked kids in coming years. Hopefully our scouting has been good and we are landing the right mix to compete. This will certainly be a total rebuild after this season for the most part.
 
Last week, my grandson was shooting practice with his high school team. Mike Dean, formerly with Siena and Marquette, happened to be visiting the school. He noted something in my grandson's 3 point shot and suggested a mild alteration in where his hands/arms were located at the start of the movement. Although he had been close to a 40% 3 point shooter last year, after a few shots, my grandson was beaming at his improved accuracy. During the last week, his regular coach commented to him how he must have been practicing a lot of shots because the arc, the accuracy and his form all seemed so much better. That's one child during two minutes of professional coaching. There is no doubt in my mind that coaches who truly understand fundamentals of shooting and of defense positioning can vastly alter the performance of the street ball stars.
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=359514]IMO player development is overblown.

Certainly SOME players improve end to end over their collegiate years. How much a coach has to do with that is questionable.

[/quote]

Sorry. I can't agree with this. For it to be true, you should be able to give a small child a ball and let them figure it out on their own all the way to the NBA. That just doesn't happen.

Kids get coaching and direction at a young age that helps develop their skillsets and their understanding of the game. Same as the progress through school. Just doesn't make sense that coaching a child on fundamentals would help develop a player, and that additional coaching at the college level would have no impact.
 
Posh and Wusu have been the type of NYC players who go away, do well and prompt redmen.comers to complain ad nauseam why we didn't recruit them.

I'm glad they're on board and I look forward to watching them play.
 
Last edited:
[quote="redmaninalbany" post=359531]Last week, my grandson was shooting practice with his high school team. Mike Dean, formerly with Siena and Marquette, happened to be visiting the school. He noted something in my grandson's 3 point shot and suggested a mild alteration in where his hands/arms were located at the start of the movement. Although he had been close to a 40% 3 point shooter last year, after a few shots, my grandson was beaming at his improved accuracy. During the last week, his regular coach commented to him how he must have been practicing a lot of shots because the arc, the accuracy and his form all seemed so much better. That's one child during two minutes of professional coaching. There is no doubt in my mind that coaches who truly understand fundamentals of shooting and of defense positioning can vastly alter the performance of the street ball stars.[/quote]

There's a big difference in developing a HS player with poor fundamentals and improving the lot of a 3 start college player who likely was the best player on his team everywhere he has played before college. If anything there are bigs in college who are recruited because of height who have poor fundamentals - some develop, some don't. I'm not saying players don't improve who work hard at this level - I am saying that their improvement is likely more attributable to their own hard work and not because of what a coach taught him.

Fundamentally, kids who starty at a young age often develop bad habits because they aren't strong enough to shoot a ball at a ten foot rim - even a smaller youth call. Some smart former players have their small kids learn on little Tyke rims, and teach kids at a young age to tuck their elbow in, point it at least horizontal to the ground, and shoot with their finger tips, using their shooting hand under the ball and non shooting hand on the side to balance it. Coaches teach that you should be able to get a pencil in a space between the palm and the fingers instead of resting the ball flat on the palm. Nearly all college players have decent shooting technique when they arrive on campus. Many HS kids don't

I cannot think of very many players over the past 40 years at St. John's who improved because of coaching. Far more were what they were when they arrived - George Johnson's, Glen Williams, David Russell, Rencher, Carter, McKoy, Gilroy, etc and on and on and on. In fact if someone made a list of who ever improved radically in terms of overall skills while here at st. Johns and who didn't, the didn't outweigh the dids by an enormous amount.

It's why Frank McGuire - who built outstanding programs at St. John's, UNC, and South Carolina, always stressed that coaching was far less important than recruiting great players.

Best wishes to your grandson and hope the new found shooting touch carries over through the season.
 
Last edited:
Zach B
Mike Anderson told me other day sophomore guard Greg Williams (back) is close to returning to practice. Has been out a while. #sjubb
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=359537][quote="redmaninalbany" post=359531]Last week, my grandson was shooting practice with his high school team. Mike Dean, formerly with Siena and Marquette, happened to be visiting the school. He noted something in my grandson's 3 point shot and suggested a mild alteration in where his hands/arms were located at the start of the movement. Although he had been close to a 40% 3 point shooter last year, after a few shots, my grandson was beaming at his improved accuracy. During the last week, his regular coach commented to him how he must have been practicing a lot of shots because the arc, the accuracy and his form all seemed so much better. That's one child during two minutes of professional coaching. There is no doubt in my mind that coaches who truly understand fundamentals of shooting and of defense positioning can vastly alter the performance of the street ball stars.[/quote]

There's a big difference in developing a HS player with poor fundamentals and improving the lot of a 3 start college player who likely was the best player on his team everywhere he has played before college. If anything there are bigs in college who are recruited because of height who have poor fundamentals - some develop, some don't. I'm not saying players don't improve who work hard at this level - I am saying that their improvement is likely more attributable to their own hard work and not because of what a coach taught him.

Fundamentally, kids who starty at a young age often develop bad habits because they aren't strong enough to shoot a ball at a ten foot rim - even a smaller youth call. Some smart former players have their small kids learn on little Tyke rims, and teach kids at a young age to tuck their elbow in, point it at least horizontal to the ground, and shoot with their finger tips, using their shooting hand under the ball and non shooting hand on the side to balance it. Coaches teach that you should be able to get a pencil in a space between the palm and the fingers instead of resting the ball flat on the palm. Nearly all college players have decent shooting technique when they arrive on campus. Many HS kids don't

I cannot think of very many players over the past 40 years at St. John's who improved because of coaching. Far more were what they were when they arrived - George Johnson's, Glen Williams, David Russell, Rencher, Carter, McKoy, Gilroy, etc and on and on and on. In fact if someone made a list of who ever improved radically in terms of overall skills while here at st. Johns and who didn't, the didn't outweigh the dids by an enormous amount.

It's why Frank McGuire - who built outstanding programs at St. John's, UNC, and South Carolina, always stressed that coaching was far less important than recruiting great players.

Best wishes to your grandson and hope the new found shooting touch carries over through the season.[/quote]

Off the top of my head, the 2 biggest improvements in a player that I can recall were David Cain and Dwight Hardy. Both from Junior to Senior year. In both cases the improvement was more a result of opportunity, then coaching IMO.
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=359537][quote="redmaninalbany" post=359531]Last week, my grandson was shooting practice with his high school team. Mike Dean, formerly with Siena and Marquette, happened to be visiting the school. He noted something in my grandson's 3 point shot and suggested a mild alteration in where his hands/arms were located at the start of the movement. Although he had been close to a 40% 3 point shooter last year, after a few shots, my grandson was beaming at his improved accuracy. During the last week, his regular coach commented to him how he must have been practicing a lot of shots because the arc, the accuracy and his form all seemed so much better. That's one child during two minutes of professional coaching. There is no doubt in my mind that coaches who truly understand fundamentals of shooting and of defense positioning can vastly alter the performance of the street ball stars.[/quote]

There's a big difference in developing a HS player with poor fundamentals and improving the lot of a 3 start college player who likely was the best player on his team everywhere he has played before college. If anything there are bigs in college who are recruited because of height who have poor fundamentals - some develop, some don't. I'm not saying players don't improve who work hard at this level - I am saying that their improvement is likely more attributable to their own hard work and not because of what a coach taught him.

Fundamentally, kids who starty at a young age often develop bad habits because they aren't strong enough to shoot a ball at a ten foot rim - even a smaller youth call. Some smart former players have their small kids learn on little Tyke rims, and teach kids at a young age to tuck their elbow in, point it at least horizontal to the ground, and shoot with their finger tips, using their shooting hand under the ball and non shooting hand on the side to balance it. Coaches teach that you should be able to get a pencil in a space between the palm and the fingers instead of resting the ball flat on the palm. Nearly all college players have decent shooting technique when they arrive on campus. Many HS kids don't

I cannot think of very many players over the past 40 years at St. John's who improved because of coaching. Far more were what they were when they arrived - George Johnson's, Glen Williams, David Russell, Rencher, Carter, McKoy, Gilroy, etc and on and on and on. In fact if someone made a list of who ever improved radically in terms of overall skills while here at st. Johns and who didn't, the didn't outweigh the dids by an enormous amount.

It's why Frank McGuire - who built outstanding programs at St. John's, UNC, and South Carolina, always stressed that coaching was far less important than recruiting great players.

Best wishes to your grandson and hope the new found shooting touch carries over through the season.[/quote]

Forgot Sir Dom there, although his was over 4 years and Lav probably deserves at least some credit.
 
Pointer is a player that Heron can look back to as he starts his final season here.

Sir Dom was a highly rated recruit who came off a nice sophomore year to have a down year as a junior. He attributed it to losing confidence in himself. His career numbers wound up in the all time St John's top five in a couple of categories (blocks and steals). He did bounce back from his dismal junior year with an outstanding senior year. He was a player that earned his degree and a load of respect.

In my view there are many players that show improvement from where they were ranked pre-college. Some peak at 12 and level or drop off while some don't develop until 19 or older. Genes are the main reason, but good coaching certainly plays a role in late bloomers.
 
Pointer wasn’t a good shooter, but was an undersized 4 . That was a better position for him, which was a reason for his improvement. Ironically hopefully Heron isn’t playing the 4 much, but plays the wing, which is a better position for him. Does Heron have any injury problems this year, which was referenced in the Rumble article as questionable?
 
Last edited:
[quote="richard A Steinfeld" post=359560]Pointer wasn’t a good shooter, but was an undersized 4 . That was a better position for him, which was a reason for his improvement. Ironically hopefully Heron isn’t playing the 4 much, but plays the wing, which is a better position for him. Does Heron have any injury problems this year, which was referenced in the Rumble article as questionable?[/quote]

Pointer is a great athlete, not a great basketball player. Lavin had him push the ball up in transition. He ran the floor extremely well, could score from 12 feet and in, and could block shots. Great leaper, but poor shooter. Raw athleticism got him an nba look. He didn't handle the ball or shoot well enough for a guard or small forward but was an effective college player.
 
Good coaching takes you 1/2 way god given talent,hard wrk and dedication and love for the game makes possible pros
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top