Jim Whitesell

[Ray Morgan]

This is something that I've definitely been wondering. Is Lavin empowering and trusting Jim Whitesell to have a significant role in the on-court product like he did with Dunlap?? Definitely a mystery, as I'd find it hard to believe that things would be going this way if Whitesell was in significant control of practices and the identity of the team.

Really hard to tell. There is so much inconsistency. For example, in the first 5-10 possessions last night we ran a little low flex cut for Jordan to get him the ball in the mid-post. DePaul seemed uncomfortable guarding it (likely a result of being unprepared for it, as we hadn't run that action once all season) and we got a bucket or two out of it. I thought it was brilliant stuff as we got our best playmaker touches in a different part of the floor, but then never went back to it for the rest of the game.

Who drew this up? Why did we go away from it? Was it intended solely to get a few easy baskets early with the thought that DePaul would easily adjust to it? Always more questions than answers when it comes to our X/O.

How about the TO after Depaul called a TO with 15 seconds or so left. We were down 1, and were assured of getting the ball back. I don't get why he needed a look at what Depaul was going to run - either way we needed a TO to set up our offense.

It's incredibly common for coaches to use a timeout the way Lavin did, and diagram a play. IF you use a time out right before a final possession, the defense gets a chance to set up, and getting a good shot is often much easier by pushing the ball upcourt quickly.

Not when it is your last time out and you are just coming out of a huddle. What did he discuss during then?

Refresh my memory. Did he call them before the teams took the court and just called them consecutively, or did he see how DePaul lined up at the foul line or something else? Thanks.

Saw something he didn't like. So said the announcers. Waited until Depaul was setting up to call the timeout. To Lavin's credit, we did have a good defensive stand and got the ball back with a chance to win.

 

[Marillac]

This is something that I've definitely been wondering. Is Lavin empowering and trusting Jim Whitesell to have a significant role in the on-court product like he did with Dunlap?? Definitely a mystery, as I'd find it hard to believe that things would be going this way if Whitesell was in significant control of practices and the identity of the team.

Really hard to tell. There is so much inconsistency. For example, in the first 5-10 possessions last night we ran a little low flex cut for Jordan to get him the ball in the mid-post. DePaul seemed uncomfortable guarding it (likely a result of being unprepared for it, as we hadn't run that action once all season) and we got a bucket or two out of it. I thought it was brilliant stuff as we got our best playmaker touches in a different part of the floor, but then never went back to it for the rest of the game.

Who drew this up? Why did we go away from it? Was it intended solely to get a few easy baskets early with the thought that DePaul would easily adjust to it? Always more questions than answers when it comes to our X/O.

We have our answer. I don't think Lavin could diagram a flex on his own.
I have seen a few similar plays recently but they have been few and far between.

 

[dee]

That last time out taken says it all. Why ? Why to so many things this year. I could go on and on....and dont be fooled fellas, when they win another game or two, you diehard fans will be back- hopes alive to only be crushed once again. I know because i am among you. I just wish, just for one year we had a legit top 5 team. Its been so long and we really deserve it.....as hard as it is for me to say this....Go Johnnies!

No it should be go Redmen.

 

[sirvoo]

Is this what 2+ million dollars a year buys you? Not sure if that number is accurate but anyway. 2 mill a year and we are sitting here wondering if the X's and O's assistant is having any input.

With that kind of money you should be getting a coach who can COACH. Not some show pony who is sort-of a wordsmith and a decent recruiter... We desperately need a HC who knows how to position his guys to win. The talent is there otherwise the 98% of us who expected a tourney bid wouldn't be sitting here flabbergasted.

These kids, with the proper coaching, would have had their role on the court engrained in their heads. Dom wouldn't chuck the occasional 3, Phil Greene wouldn't dribble the ball east to west all game long and never once dribble in the paint, DLO would know when it's not his night and try and be a facilitator. Players like Jakarr wouldn't decline after a BE ROY season...

The writing is on the wall, we need a coach who can develop players and put a good product out on the floor. It's not all about wins and losses, we all forgave those defeats to Wisconsin, Cuse and even Penn State. Right now this is bordering on a disaster campaign which I presume to be Lavin's last.

 

[ipd200]

There was a major improvement in the rest of the team their senior year, most noticeably Burrell, Boothe, Bobre's favorite player that I'm forgetting the name of among others. When DJ got hurt things changed, but in January and February it seemed like every player on that team knew exactly what their role was and you could see it in team execution on both side of the court. This year offense and defense whether man or zone looks like 5 guys playing pickup with no concept of plYing as a team. To me that's coaching.

 

[redmannorth]

There was a major improvement in the rest of the team their senior year, most noticeably Burrell, Boothe, Bobre's favorite player that I'm forgetting the name of among others. When DJ got hurt things changed, but in January and February it seemed like every player on that team knew exactly what their role was and you could see it in team execution on both side of the court. This year offense and defense whether man or zone looks like 5 guys playing pickup with no concept of plYing as a team. To me that's coaching.

And unfortunately my friend that was all Coach Dunlap. The big question is will Coach Lavin give Coach Whitesell the same authority he gave Coach Dunlap? If he turns to Rico as Moose has pointed out don't hope for much.

 

[guru]

Dunlap was definitely the driving force in development.....I'm sorry but the whole ny metro area media is catching on and will ultimately be lavins demise! His lack of actual ability to coach is coming to the surface and quickly.... How in gods name can we not try impose a full court trapping philosophy....we cannot keep anyone in front of us in the half court! It baffles me

 

[Moose]

Dunlap was definitely the driving force in development.....I'm sorry but the whole ny metro area media is catching on and will ultimately be lavins demise! His lack of actual ability to coach is coming to the surface and quickly.... How in gods name can we not try impose a full court trapping philosophy....we cannot keep anyone in front of us in the half court! It baffles me

What makes you say the media is catching on?

A tweet from Mike Vaccaro and a headline from Kieran Darcy about questionable lineup down the stretch is not significant.

 

[logen]

This is something that I've definitely been wondering. Is Lavin empowering and trusting Jim Whitesell to have a significant role in the on-court product like he did with Dunlap?? Definitely a mystery, as I'd find it hard to believe that things would be going this way if Whitesell was in significant control of practices and the identity of the team.

Really hard to tell. There is so much inconsistency. For example, in the first 5-10 possessions last night we ran a little low flex cut for Jordan to get him the ball in the mid-post. DePaul seemed uncomfortable guarding it (likely a result of being unprepared for it, as we hadn't run that action once all season) and we got a bucket or two out of it. I thought it was brilliant stuff as we got our best playmaker touches in a different part of the floor, but then never went back to it for the rest of the game.

Who drew this up? Why did we go away from it? Was it intended solely to get a few easy baskets early with the thought that DePaul would easily adjust to it? Always more questions than answers when it comes to our X/O.

How about the TO after Depaul called a TO with 15 seconds or so left. We were down 1, and were assured of getting the ball back. I don't get why he needed a look at what Depaul was going to run - either way we needed a TO to set up our offense.

It's incredibly common for coaches to use a timeout the way Lavin did, and diagram a play. IF you use a time out right before a final possession, the defense gets a chance to set up, and getting a good shot is often much easier by pushing the ball upcourt quickly.

I agree and we got a GREAT shot. Hooper just didn't make it. My only comment is that if Lavin thought w should have held it for a better shot as reported well, I don't understand that at all.

 

[Jack Williams]

If we were down three that's a great shot, but honestly we should've gone to the hoop, in the heat of the moment though, I can see why he shot was thrown up, we didn't lose the game on the final possession, we lost it on the final 4 possessions.

 

[logen]

If we were down three that's a great shot, but honestly we should've gone to the hoop, in the heat of the moment though, I can see why he shot was thrown up, we didn't lose the game on the final possession, we lost it on the final 4 possessions.

No that was a great shot and should have been taken. Why should we have gone to the hoop, because it didn't go in? We hadn't gotten a decent look or run efficient offense in 5 minutes but we should pass up a wide open look by our "best" shooter with the clock running down? No way, that's just a massive second guess because it didn't go in.

 

[Jack Williams]

If we were down three that's a great shot, but honestly we should've gone to the hoop, in the heat of the moment though, I can see why he shot was thrown up, we didn't lose the game on the final possession, we lost it on the final 4 possessions.

No that was a great shot and should have been taken. Why should we have gone to the hoop, because it didn't go in? We hadn't gotten a decent look or run efficient offense in 5 minutes but we should pass up a wide open look by our "best" shooter with the clock running down? No way, that's just a massive second guess because it didn't go in.

It's not a second guess, it's a thought because we were down by ONE, and a shot closer to the rim is a higher percentage shot and also has a better possibility of causing a foul. Also depauls defense was not set so even though we hadn't gotten a good inside look down the stretch in our half court offense, in the fast break we definitely could've.

Lavin said after the game he would've liked something closer to the hoop, and it's one of the things he's said that I actually do agree with.

 

[westchesterjoe]

This is something that I've definitely been wondering. Is Lavin empowering and trusting Jim Whitesell to have a significant role in the on-court product like he did with Dunlap?? Definitely a mystery, as I'd find it hard to believe that things would be going this way if Whitesell was in significant control of practices and the identity of the team.

Really hard to tell. There is so much inconsistency. For example, in the first 5-10 possessions last night we ran a little low flex cut for Jordan to get him the ball in the mid-post. DePaul seemed uncomfortable guarding it (likely a result of being unprepared for it, as we hadn't run that action once all season) and we got a bucket or two out of it. I thought it was brilliant stuff as we got our best playmaker touches in a different part of the floor, but then never went back to it for the rest of the game.

Who drew this up? Why did we go away from it? Was it intended solely to get a few easy baskets early with the thought that DePaul would easily adjust to it? Always more questions than answers when it comes to our X/O.

I posted that 3 times last night...i was impressed that we recognized the Jordan/Garrett mismatch...then we never exploited it again

Absolutely true. The answer to your question would be interesting to pose to LAVIN. i 'm surprised no one in the Press asked him that question? We are all baffled by actions taken or, not taken by this team in situations where a COACHING strategy should be apparent.. This was one of the many.

 

[SJU1512]

If we were down three that's a great shot, but honestly we should've gone to the hoop, in the heat of the moment though, I can see why he shot was thrown up, we didn't lose the game on the final possession, we lost it on the final 4 possessions.

No that was a great shot and should have been taken. Why should we have gone to the hoop, because it didn't go in? We hadn't gotten a decent look or run efficient offense in 5 minutes but we should pass up a wide open look by our "best" shooter with the clock running down? No way, that's just a massive second guess because it didn't go in.

It's not a second guess, it's a thought because we were down by ONE, and a shot closer to the rim is a higher percentage shot and also has a better possibility of causing a foul. Also depauls defense was not set so even though we hadn't gotten a good inside look down the stretch in our half court offense, in the fast break we definitely could've.

Lavin said after the game he would've liked something closer to the hoop, and it's one of the things he's said that I actually do agree with.

Whether it was the right shot or not, it's kind of hysterical that our guards have spent a majority of the season to date ignoring Hooper when he's open in favor of driving into traffic, but gave it to him right on time and in rhythm for the biggest shot of the season. Were it not for Max's utter shock at getting the ball when he did he may have knocked it down!

 

[Jack Williams]

If we were down three that's a great shot, but honestly we should've gone to the hoop, in the heat of the moment though, I can see why he shot was thrown up, we didn't lose the game on the final possession, we lost it on the final 4 possessions.

No that was a great shot and should have been taken. Why should we have gone to the hoop, because it didn't go in? We hadn't gotten a decent look or run efficient offense in 5 minutes but we should pass up a wide open look by our "best" shooter with the clock running down? No way, that's just a massive second guess because it didn't go in.

It's not a second guess, it's a thought because we were down by ONE, and a shot closer to the rim is a higher percentage shot and also has a better possibility of causing a foul. Also depauls defense was not set so even though we hadn't gotten a good inside look down the stretch in our half court offense, in the fast break we definitely could've.

Lavin said after the game he would've liked something closer to the hoop, and it's one of the things he's said that I actually do agree with.

Whether it was the right shot or not, it's kind of hysterical that our guards have spent a majority of the season to date ignoring Hooper when he's open in favor of driving into traffic, but gave it to him right on time and in rhythm for the biggest shot of the season. Were it not for Max's utter shock at getting the ball when he did he may have knocked it down!

Don't get me wrong it was a good shot, but on the fast break there was a great opportunity to get to the hoop, but logen is right, there is no way of telling we would of actually gotten a shot off if hooper passed it, so it was smart to take the shot we could get.

 

[beast of the east]

If we were down three that's a great shot, but honestly we should've gone to the hoop, in the heat of the moment though, I can see why he shot was thrown up, we didn't lose the game on the final possession, we lost it on the final 4 possessions.

No that was a great shot and should have been taken. Why should we have gone to the hoop, because it didn't go in? We hadn't gotten a decent look or run efficient offense in 5 minutes but we should pass up a wide open look by our "best" shooter with the clock running down? No way, that's just a massive second guess because it didn't go in.

It's not a second guess, it's a thought because we were down by ONE, and a shot closer to the rim is a higher percentage shot and also has a better possibility of causing a foul. Also depauls defense was not set so even though we hadn't gotten a good inside look down the stretch in our half court offense, in the fast break we definitely could've.

Lavin said after the game he would've liked something closer to the hoop, and it's one of the things he's said that I actually do agree with.

Whether it was the right shot or not, it's kind of hysterical that our guards have spent a majority of the season to date ignoring Hooper when he's open in favor of driving into traffic, but gave it to him right on time and in rhythm for the biggest shot of the season. Were it not for Max's utter shock at getting the ball when he did he may have knocked it down!

I don't think it's happened to the same extent as Marco was sometimes ignored last season. Make one thing certain: If Hooper starts making shots when they count, he will get the ball.

 

[beast of the east]

If we were down three that's a great shot, but honestly we should've gone to the hoop, in the heat of the moment though, I can see why he shot was thrown up, we didn't lose the game on the final possession, we lost it on the final 4 possessions.

No that was a great shot and should have been taken. Why should we have gone to the hoop, because it didn't go in? We hadn't gotten a decent look or run efficient offense in 5 minutes but we should pass up a wide open look by our "best" shooter with the clock running down? No way, that's just a massive second guess because it didn't go in.

It's not a second guess, it's a thought because we were down by ONE, and a shot closer to the rim is a higher percentage shot and also has a better possibility of causing a foul. Also depauls defense was not set so even though we hadn't gotten a good inside look down the stretch in our half court offense, in the fast break we definitely could've.

Lavin said after the game he would've liked something closer to the hoop, and it's one of the things he's said that I actually do agree with.

Whether it was the right shot or not, it's kind of hysterical that our guards have spent a majority of the season to date ignoring Hooper when he's open in favor of driving into traffic, but gave it to him right on time and in rhythm for the biggest shot of the season. Were it not for Max's utter shock at getting the ball when he did he may have knocked it down!

Don't get me wrong it was a good shot, but on the fast break there was a great opportunity to get to the hoop, but logen is right, there is no way of telling we would of actually gotten a shot off if hooper passed it, so it was smart to take the shot we could get.

I know it hardly matters, but Jordan's last desperation heave was tossed about a second before he had to release. I think there were about 2 seconds on the clock when we inbounded. IT takes 2.5 seconds to go end to end, 94 feet. I'd always remind players of that at the end of a game. Being that we inbounded and Jordan received the ball somewhere between the foul line and midcourt, he had time to get off a 25-30 foot shot, and not a 50 foot heave. Still a very tough shot, but it's the things better teams do.

 

[SJU1512]

If we were down three that's a great shot, but honestly we should've gone to the hoop, in the heat of the moment though, I can see why he shot was thrown up, we didn't lose the game on the final possession, we lost it on the final 4 possessions.

No that was a great shot and should have been taken. Why should we have gone to the hoop, because it didn't go in? We hadn't gotten a decent look or run efficient offense in 5 minutes but we should pass up a wide open look by our "best" shooter with the clock running down? No way, that's just a massive second guess because it didn't go in.

It's not a second guess, it's a thought because we were down by ONE, and a shot closer to the rim is a higher percentage shot and also has a better possibility of causing a foul. Also depauls defense was not set so even though we hadn't gotten a good inside look down the stretch in our half court offense, in the fast break we definitely could've.

Lavin said after the game he would've liked something closer to the hoop, and it's one of the things he's said that I actually do agree with.

Whether it was the right shot or not, it's kind of hysterical that our guards have spent a majority of the season to date ignoring Hooper when he's open in favor of driving into traffic, but gave it to him right on time and in rhythm for the biggest shot of the season. Were it not for Max's utter shock at getting the ball when he did he may have knocked it down!

I don't think it's happened to the same extent as Marco was sometimes ignored last season. Make one thing certain: If Hooper starts making shots when they count, he will get the ball.

No doubt about it. I wasn't being serious at all with this comment, just feeding off the Marco joke from last year.

 

[Amaseinyourface]

This is something that I've definitely been wondering. Is Lavin empowering and trusting Jim Whitesell to have a significant role in the on-court product like he did with Dunlap?? Definitely a mystery, as I'd find it hard to believe that things would be going this way if Whitesell was in significant control of practices and the identity of the team.

Really hard to tell. There is so much inconsistency. For example, in the first 5-10 possessions last night we ran a little low flex cut for Jordan to get him the ball in the mid-post. DePaul seemed uncomfortable guarding it (likely a result of being unprepared for it, as we hadn't run that action once all season) and we got a bucket or two out of it. I thought it was brilliant stuff as we got our best playmaker touches in a different part of the floor, but then never went back to it for the rest of the game.

Who drew this up? Why did we go away from it? Was it intended solely to get a few easy baskets early with the thought that DePaul would easily adjust to it? Always more questions than answers when it comes to our X/O.

How about the TO after Depaul called a TO with 15 seconds or so left. We were down 1, and were assured of getting the ball back. I don't get why he needed a look at what Depaul was going to run - either way we needed a TO to set up our offense.

It's incredibly common for coaches to use a timeout the way Lavin did, and diagram a play. IF you use a time out right before a final possession, the defense gets a chance to set up, and getting a good shot is often much easier by pushing the ball upcourt quickly.

Not when it is your last time out and you are just coming out of a huddle. What did he discuss during then?

Refresh my memory. Did he call them before the teams took the court and just called them consecutively, or did he see how DePaul lined up at the foul line or something else? Thanks.

Sorry beast just saw this, we were on defense so it really shouldnt have mattered either way how they came out and set up. Save the timeout for an offensive emergency.

 

[ipd200]

There was a major improvement in the rest of the team their senior year, most noticeably Burrell, Boothe, Bobre's favorite player that I'm forgetting the name of among others. When DJ got hurt things changed, but in January and February it seemed like every player on that team knew exactly what their role was and you could see it in team execution on both side of the court. This year offense and defense whether man or zone looks like 5 guys playing pickup with no concept of plYing as a team. To me that's coaching.

And unfortunately my friend that was all Coach Dunlap. The big question is will Coach Lavin give Coach Whitesell the same authority he gave Coach Dunlap? If he turns to Rico as Moose has pointed out don't hope for much.

Agreed 100%. I was responding to Beast but didn't quote him so my post looked like it was just hanging out there. My point was that with good coaches players obviously play much better and have roles