Lavin The Genius

The title of this thread is so mean-spirited that I haven't even bothered to read 95% of the posts, so forgive me if I'm echoing someone else's take on this. Is Lavin the best X's and O's coach around? No. We all knew that when he came here, but the overwhelming majority of us were excited -- make that very excited -- that someone who had taken UCLA deep into the NCAAs pretty much on a regular basis was taking over our moribund program. What we expected Lavin to do was energize the program, get the team back in the national spotlight, get the program back in a winning mode, and attract high-profile recruits ... and he's done all that while having to spend a year battling prostate cancer, which is a killer, both literally and figuratively, not to mention having to deal with the behind-the-back misinformation to potential recruits that he'd never come back. I don't agree with all the choices he's made, but I'm willing to cut him some slack because they were made with the best interests of the program in mind. Of that I have no doubt.
Click to expand...

Exactly! He's coached his own guys one full season, and taken Norm guys to heights that none of us would have laid 10-1 odds on.
 
Perspective:

Norm Roberts
2004–2005 St. John's 9-18 3-13 13th
2005–2006 St. John's 12-15 5-11 T-13th
2006–2007 St. John's 16-15 7-9 11th
2007–2008 St. John's 11-19 5-13 14th
2008–2009 St. John's 16-18 6-12 13th CBI, First Round
2009–2010 St. John's 17-16 6-12 13th NIT, First Round

Steve Lavin
2010–11 St. John's 21–12 12–6 5th NCAA First Round
2011–12 St. John's 13–19 6–12 T–11th (Only Coached 4 games, no depth)
2012-13 St. John's 16-13 8-9 10th (Possible NIT Birth) (Current Season)

Mike Krzyzewski
1980–81 Duke 17–13 6–8 T–5th NIT Quarterfinals
1981–82 Duke 10–17 4–10 T–6th
1982–83 Duke 11–17 3–11 7th


Can everyone please now shut up and give the man at least 5 or 6 seasons to prove himself. If you are whining after two season, I would hate to see how you deal with adversity in your personal life, and how far that has gotten you.
Click to expand...


Is it true that Norm Roberts was the worst Big East Conference coach ever? Does his winning percentage reflect that?
 
Perspective:

Norm Roberts
2004–2005 St. John's 9-18 3-13 13th
2005–2006 St. John's 12-15 5-11 T-13th
2006–2007 St. John's 16-15 7-9 11th
2007–2008 St. John's 11-19 5-13 14th
2008–2009 St. John's 16-18 6-12 13th CBI, First Round
2009–2010 St. John's 17-16 6-12 13th NIT, First Round

Steve Lavin
2010–11 St. John's 21–12 12–6 5th NCAA First Round
2011–12 St. John's 13–19 6–12 T–11th (Only Coached 4 games, no depth)
2012-13 St. John's 16-13 8-9 10th (Possible NIT Birth) (Current Season)

Mike Krzyzewski
1980–81 Duke 17–13 6–8 T–5th NIT Quarterfinals
1981–82 Duke 10–17 4–10 T–6th
1982–83 Duke 11–17 3–11 7th


Can everyone please now shut up and give the man at least 5 or 6 seasons to prove himself. If you are whining after two season, I would hate to see how you deal with adversity in your personal life, and how far that has gotten you.
Click to expand...


Is it true that Norm Roberts was the worst Big East Conference coach ever? Does his winning percentage reflect that?
Click to expand...

I thought I heard that too but there had to be someone worse. All depends on minimum # of yrs I guess.
 
Ricky Stokes should be in the conversation:

2000-01 Virginia Tech 8-19 Big East 2-14 no
2001-02 Virginia Tech 10-18 Big East 4-12 no
2002-03 Virginia Tech 12-17 Big East 4-12 no
 
Ricky Stokes should be in the conversation:

2000-01 Virginia Tech 8-19 Big East 2-14 no
2001-02 Virginia Tech 10-18 Big East 4-12 no
2002-03 Virginia Tech 12-17 Big East 4-12 no
Click to expand...

Purnell now also, no?
 
Ricky Stokes should be in the conversation:

2000-01 Virginia Tech 8-19 Big East 2-14 no
2001-02 Virginia Tech 10-18 Big East 4-12 no
2002-03 Virginia Tech 12-17 Big East 4-12 no
Click to expand...

If it's worst BE record regardless of team, I would think it's hard to find someone worse than Oliver Purnell at DePaul. He's been 6-47 (.113) in three years. (Robert McCullum at USF was 4-30, .133 in two seasons.) If we're talking about St. John's only, Norm was 31-70 for .313, while Mahoney was 31-47 for .397.
 
The title of this thread is so mean-spirited that I haven't even bothered to read 95% of the posts, so forgive me if I'm echoing someone else's take on this. Is Lavin the best X's and O's coach around? No. We all knew that when he came here, but the overwhelming majority of us were excited -- make that very excited -- that someone who had taken UCLA deep into the NCAAs pretty much on a regular basis was taking over our moribund program. What we expected Lavin to do was energize the program, get the team back in the national spotlight, get the program back in a winning mode, and attract high-profile recruits ... and he's done all that while having to spend a year battling prostate cancer, which is a killer, both literally and figuratively, not to mention having to deal with the behind-the-back misinformation to potential recruits that he'd never come back. I don't agree with all the choices he's made, but I'm willing to cut him some slack because they were made with the best interests of the program in mind. Of that I have no doubt.
Click to expand...

The title of the thread is mean spirited? Perhaps if you read the post you would see that it was not meant in any way to mock the coach or belittle his in game coaching. The title was in response to the recent deluge of anti Lavin posts, which often followed, by some posters, a diatribe on the deficiencies of every player on the team. My point is, as restated on several occasions, that you can't have it both ways, all things considered. If the team is as poor as described, then only Lavin's coaching could have brought them 8 conference wins and 4 or so that were almost won. The genius part was for emphasis. I thought, and still believe, Lavin was a great hire. I have said on other occasions that building this up from scratch, which is what Norm left behind, isn't easy. Coach Lavin is fine by me. Maybe not an elite coach, but good enough given the right talent.
 
The title of this thread is so mean-spirited that I haven't even bothered to read 95% of the posts, so forgive me if I'm echoing someone else's take on this. Is Lavin the best X's and O's coach around? No. We all knew that when he came here, but the overwhelming majority of us were excited -- make that very excited -- that someone who had taken UCLA deep into the NCAAs pretty much on a regular basis was taking over our moribund program. What we expected Lavin to do was energize the program, get the team back in the national spotlight, get the program back in a winning mode, and attract high-profile recruits ... and he's done all that while having to spend a year battling prostate cancer, which is a killer, both literally and figuratively, not to mention having to deal with the behind-the-back misinformation to potential recruits that he'd never come back. I don't agree with all the choices he's made, but I'm willing to cut him some slack because they were made with the best interests of the program in mind. Of that I have no doubt.
Click to expand...

The title of the thread is mean spirited? Perhaps if you read the post you would see that it was not meant in any way to mock the coach or belittle his in game coaching. The title was in response to the recent deluge of anti Lavin posts, which often followed, by some posters, a diatribe on the deficiencies of every player on the team. My point is, as restated on several occasions, that you can't have it both ways, all things considered. If the team is as poor as described, then only Lavin's coaching could have brought them 8 conference wins and 4 or so that were almost won. The genius part was for emphasis. I thought, and still believe, Lavin was a great hire. I have said on other occasions that building this up from scratch, which is what Norm left behind, isn't easy. Coach Lavin is fine by me. Maybe not an elite coach, but good enough given the right talent.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear it ... but your choice of a subject title for the thread could've been better. "Lavin the Genius" sounds -- at least to me -- sarcastic and derisive, especially coming, as it did, on the heels of a disappointing, tumultuous, and controversial ending to the regular season. Good to hear to I interpreted it incorrectly.
 
The title of this thread is so mean-spirited that I haven't even bothered to read 95% of the posts, so forgive me if I'm echoing someone else's take on this. Is Lavin the best X's and O's coach around? No. We all knew that when he came here, but the overwhelming majority of us were excited -- make that very excited -- that someone who had taken UCLA deep into the NCAAs pretty much on a regular basis was taking over our moribund program. What we expected Lavin to do was energize the program, get the team back in the national spotlight, get the program back in a winning mode, and attract high-profile recruits ... and he's done all that while having to spend a year battling prostate cancer, which is a killer, both literally and figuratively, not to mention having to deal with the behind-the-back misinformation to potential recruits that he'd never come back. I don't agree with all the choices he's made, but I'm willing to cut him some slack because they were made with the best interests of the program in mind. Of that I have no doubt.
Click to expand...

The title of the thread is mean spirited? Perhaps if you read the post you would see that it was not meant in any way to mock the coach or belittle his in game coaching. The title was in response to the recent deluge of anti Lavin posts, which often followed, by some posters, a diatribe on the deficiencies of every player on the team. My point is, as restated on several occasions, that you can't have it both ways, all things considered. If the team is as poor as described, then only Lavin's coaching could have brought them 8 conference wins and 4 or so that were almost won. The genius part was for emphasis. I thought, and still believe, Lavin was a great hire. I have said on other occasions that building this up from scratch, which is what Norm left behind, isn't easy. Coach Lavin is fine by me. Maybe not an elite coach, but good enough given the right talent.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear it ... but your choice of a subject title for the thread could've been better. "Lavin the Genius" sounds -- at least to me -- sarcastic and derisive, especially coming, as it did, on the heels of a disappointing, tumultuous, and controversial ending to the regular season. Good to hear to I interpreted it incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Based on your comments and the response from several others, it was a poor choice for a title. It just amazes me that after Mahoney, Jarvis and Norm, and years of frustration, that a man who brought a NBA first rounder in his 1st recruiting class, and a likely first rounder and another draft pick in year two, is so easily thrown under the bus by some impatient fans and posters. What is further mind boggling is questioning the suspension of Harrison without even knowing what goes on in practice or other situations.
 
The title of this thread is so mean-spirited that I haven't even bothered to read 95% of the posts, so forgive me if I'm echoing someone else's take on this. Is Lavin the best X's and O's coach around? No. We all knew that when he came here, but the overwhelming majority of us were excited -- make that very excited -- that someone who had taken UCLA deep into the NCAAs pretty much on a regular basis was taking over our moribund program. What we expected Lavin to do was energize the program, get the team back in the national spotlight, get the program back in a winning mode, and attract high-profile recruits ... and he's done all that while having to spend a year battling prostate cancer, which is a killer, both literally and figuratively, not to mention having to deal with the behind-the-back misinformation to potential recruits that he'd never come back. I don't agree with all the choices he's made, but I'm willing to cut him some slack because they were made with the best interests of the program in mind. Of that I have no doubt.
Click to expand...

The title of the thread is mean spirited? Perhaps if you read the post you would see that it was not meant in any way to mock the coach or belittle his in game coaching. The title was in response to the recent deluge of anti Lavin posts, which often followed, by some posters, a diatribe on the deficiencies of every player on the team. My point is, as restated on several occasions, that you can't have it both ways, all things considered. If the team is as poor as described, then only Lavin's coaching could have brought them 8 conference wins and 4 or so that were almost won. The genius part was for emphasis. I thought, and still believe, Lavin was a great hire. I have said on other occasions that building this up from scratch, which is what Norm left behind, isn't easy. Coach Lavin is fine by me. Maybe not an elite coach, but good enough given the right talent.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear it ... but your choice of a subject title for the thread could've been better. "Lavin the Genius" sounds -- at least to me -- sarcastic and derisive, especially coming, as it did, on the heels of a disappointing, tumultuous, and controversial ending to the regular season. Good to hear to I interpreted it incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Based on your comments and the response from several others, it was a poor choice for a title. It just amazes me that after Mahoney, Jarvis and Norm, and years of frustration, that a man who brought a NBA first rounder in his 1st recruiting class, and a likely first rounder and another draft pick in year two, is so easily thrown under the bus by some impatient fans and posters. What is further mind boggling is questioning the suspension of Harrison without even knowing what goes on in practice or other situations.
Click to expand...

I don't mean this as an attack on you or Lavin but I could care less how many players he sends to the NBA, I want to see a good competitive team on the court game in and game out; a consistent Top 25 program. He needs time to do it but if he accomplishes that without sending one player to the NBA it's ok with me. It may help recruiting a bit but not nearly as much as some people think.
 
This is not an excuse for being so negative toward Lavin, but this negativity is the residue left from 20 years of frustration caused by Harrington. The negative fans on this board need a lot more convincing.

P.S. I do not consider myself one of them.
 
I was very excited when I learned Lavin was hired to replace Roberts.. I knew he had done a good job at UCLA but, also know that is a program that would not tolerate losing..UCLA, like Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Duke, NC, always expect their teams to be NCAA contenders.. I must admit though, I did not give much thought to the fact that, Lavin spent 8 years as a ESPN Color analyst before taking the SJU job.

Why wasn't he picked up by some other program during that time frame? Perhaps he had offers but, declined? I don't know, perhaps others here do?
I also was surprised that UCLA fans were so forceful in their dislike for Lavin. I could not understand it, at the time. Even some players, like Baron Davis, didn't seem real impressed with Steve as a Coach but, did respect him as a friend, etc.

At UCLA, any Coach there, i.e Howland, would be expected to recruit 4-5 star talent, pretty much every year and Lavin did too.. If you get that kind of talent, you're suppose to get League or NCAA contention from your teams. That's part of the expectations.

As we've seen here and, likely when he was at UCLA, Lavin does not seem to get that talent to improve and consistently win..Fans see that some of these talented players have deficiencies in shooting, are poor free throw shooters, can't play defense, don't rebound and lastly, play one on one basketball, like they did in AAU or HS bb.

When you see teams like Gonzaga, Butler and countless others play better BB than your team with less talent, it gets frustrating..Even the most fervent admirers of Lavin have to admit he has not shown he can teach BB fundamentals or team strategy to his players.. I think that is what caused UCLA to fire him..You see all the individual talent on the floor and you also see some of the worst BB you've ever seen a team play, at times.

Sure, the talent can win over less talented opponents but, when the talent is equalized like it is in the BE, you need more than just individual talent to consistently win. You can also lose games regularly over teams you should be dismantling, like Murray State, UNC-Ashville, San Francisco, etc..Losses in the BE to Rutgers, Providence, barely beating DePaul twice and blowouts against L'ville, G'town , SU,Pitt and, 2nd ND game.. Yes, we did beat CINN once and ND once but, also lost games we could have won, First Rutgers, PC, Nova and lastly, Marquette. And, yes, the UCONN win was a good one over a mediocre Huskie team this year.

Lavin has done a great job in selling the University and improving its' basket ball profile in the rebuilding stage but, at some point he's expected to contend for the BE Championship and possibly a sweet 16, elite 8 performance level.Will he?

We've had, with 1 exception, the 2011 team with Hardy,DJ,etc, 12 years of awful BB and, while fan expectations have deteriorated as a result for many, there are some of us who saw nothing but, tournament qualifying BB for over 30 years..Louie always made a tourney, even without the best talent..

Those teams played hard, disciplined, team ball. Even the Mullin, Berry, Jackson teams always ran the same simple stuff as the Sealy, Werdann,teams did. It worked.

So, I think a lot of the frustration with Lavin is that the individual talent doesn't seem to improve the team's performance and that player weaknesses don't seem to be turned into strengths.. Shouldn't CO be able to shoot 50% on his free throws by now? How about him learning to box out? I 'm not picking on him because I like his attitude and his potential but, potential has to be turned into performance at some point.

I believe too, that any fan has to recognize that this group needs to play better as a unit and not, 5 guys running up and down the Court with no strategy or set plan.

These are some of the reasons why questions are raised about Lavin's Coaching.. I think they have some validity in many fans minds. I like Steve and his persona.. He's a great ambassador for the school but, he's the BB Coach and Coaching is teaching..Can we say his group of recruits have improved individually or, in their team play? They've had 2 years really. I count last year with Dunlap , shouldn't we? Sure, Sampson and CO are freshman but, very talented ones and were expected to contribute from day one. Sampson has and CO has too, in a limited way. So, the inexperience thing doesn't float.
 
Why wasn't he picked up by some other program during that time frame? Perhaps he had offers but, declined? I don't know, perhaps others here do?
I also was surprised that UCLA fans were so forceful in their dislike for Lavin. I could not understand it, at the time. Even some players, like Baron Davis, didn't seem real impressed with Steve as a Coach but, did respect him as a friend, etc.
Click to expand...

He had a chance to be the coach of NC State, but turned it down. I also believe he was on DePaul's short list during the time we were looking to replace Roberts.

At UCLA, any Coach there, i.e Howland, would be expected to recruit 4-5 star talent, pretty much every year and Lavin did too.. If you get that kind of talent, you're suppose to get League or NCAA contention from your teams. That's part of the expectations.
Click to expand...

You have a good point, in reference to having 4 and 5-star talent should put you in a position for the NCAA Tournament. That isn't always the case, though. There have been times when teams have underachieved despite their supposedly-talented roster. So, does the coach get credit for winning with talent the same way he gets hammered for losing (whether, he has talent or not)? Not trying to be condescending with that either.

As we've seen here and, likely when he was at UCLA, Lavin does not seem to get that talent to improve and consistently win..Fans see that some of these talented players have deficiencies in shooting, are poor free throw shooters, can't play defense, don't rebound and lastly, play one on one basketball, like they did in AAU or HS bb.
Click to expand...

Lavin seemed to always have UCLA in position to vie for a Final Four, but he would also have his up's-and-down's in the regular season. He was generally a dragon slayer (beating some very good teams), but would have a hiccup or two by losing to an inferior opponent. It also seemed that he tended to have some bad luck, by losing key players during the season or in the NCAA Tournament.

This particular team has some deficiencies (especially, their hoops IQ), but there are a couple of players who have improved, in Obekpa and Pointer. The overall team defense and rebounding (especially, Obekpa's boarding) has also gotten better. You also have the ROY in Sampson, who has had some wonderful games.

When you see teams like Gonzaga, Butler and countless others play better BB than your team with less talent, it gets frustrating..Even the most fervent admirers of Lavin have to admit he has not shown he can teach BB fundamentals or team strategy to his players.. I think that is what caused UCLA to fire him..You see all the individual talent on the floor and you also see some of the worst BB you've ever seen a team play, at times.
Click to expand...

Many of those teams you've mentioned generally have older players, who has grown with the team. Not to mention, kids who also do not lack talent either. The other key factor is those teams also generally have about 3 guys who can shoot the trey.

Lavin was fired because UCLA fans are similar to Kentucky and UNC fans.... If they aren't getting to Final Fours, then the coach is immediately on the hot seat. Lavin also came behind a national championship.

Sure, the talent can win over less talented opponents but, when the talent is equalized like it is in the BE, you need more than just individual talent to consistently win. You can also lose games regularly over teams you should be dismantling, like Murray State, UNC-Ashville, San Francisco, etc..Losses in the BE to Rutgers, Providence, barely beating DePaul twice and blowouts against L'ville, G'town , SU,Pitt and, 2nd ND game.. Yes, we did beat CINN once and ND once but, also lost games we could have won, First Rutgers, PC, Nova and lastly, Marquette. And, yes, the UCONN win was a good one over a mediocre Huskie team this year.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that we lost about 4 games that we should've won. The "barely" beating DePaul doesn't fly. Notre Dame also struggled with DePaul. Now, it seems like you're whining for the sake of.

Now, you're giving the team a backhanded compliment for beating Cincy and Notre Dame because they lost to the other teams you've mentioned.

I'll just stop short right here with your post, as I can see where you're going. Remember, you're the guy who couldn't even be happy for the team during their 5-game winning streak.

IMO, you lose me (and, probably several others on the board) with overkill. Try to be unilateral and objective in your discussions, and then your posts wouldn't consistently be dismissed (as, you're usually disingenous).

Show some positivity from time to time. It doesn't hurt to occasionally be refreshing.
 
Why wasn't he picked up by some other program during that time frame? Perhaps he had offers but, declined? I don't know, perhaps others here do?
I also was surprised that UCLA fans were so forceful in their dislike for Lavin. I could not understand it, at the time. Even some players, like Baron Davis, didn't seem real impressed with Steve as a Coach but, did respect him as a friend, etc.
Click to expand...

He had a chance to be the coach of NC State, but turned it down. I also believe he was on DePaul's short list during the time we were looking to replace Roberts.

At UCLA, any Coach there, i.e Howland, would be expected to recruit 4-5 star talent, pretty much every year and Lavin did too.. If you get that kind of talent, you're suppose to get League or NCAA contention from your teams. That's part of the expectations.
Click to expand...

You have a good point, in reference to having 4 and 5-star talent should put you in a position for the NCAA Tournament. That isn't always the case, though. There have been times when teams have underachieved despite their supposedly-talented roster. So, does the coach get credit for winning with talent the same way he gets hammered for losing (whether, he has talent or not)? Not trying to be condescending with that either.

As we've seen here and, likely when he was at UCLA, Lavin does not seem to get that talent to improve and consistently win..Fans see that some of these talented players have deficiencies in shooting, are poor free throw shooters, can't play defense, don't rebound and lastly, play one on one basketball, like they did in AAU or HS bb.
Click to expand...

Lavin seemed to always have UCLA in position to vie for a Final Four, but he would also have his up's-and-down's in the regular season. He was generally a dragon slayer (beating some very good teams), but would have a hiccup or two by losing to an inferior opponent. It also seemed that he tended to have some bad luck, by losing key players during the season or in the NCAA Tournament.

This particular team has some deficiencies (especially, their hoops IQ), but there are a couple of players who have improved, in Obekpa and Pointer. The overall team defense and rebounding (especially, Obekpa's boarding) has also gotten better. You also have the ROY in Sampson, who has had some wonderful games.

When you see teams like Gonzaga, Butler and countless others play better BB than your team with less talent, it gets frustrating..Even the most fervent admirers of Lavin have to admit he has not shown he can teach BB fundamentals or team strategy to his players.. I think that is what caused UCLA to fire him..You see all the individual talent on the floor and you also see some of the worst BB you've ever seen a team play, at times.
Click to expand...

Many of those teams you've mentioned generally have older players, who has grown with the team. Not to mention, kids who also do not lack talent either. The other key factor is those teams also generally have about 3 guys who can shoot the trey.

Lavin was fired because UCLA fans are similar to Kentucky and UNC fans.... If they aren't getting to Final Fours, then the coach is immediately on the hot seat. Lavin also came behind a national championship.

Sure, the talent can win over less talented opponents but, when the talent is equalized like it is in the BE, you need more than just individual talent to consistently win. You can also lose games regularly over teams you should be dismantling, like Murray State, UNC-Ashville, San Francisco, etc..Losses in the BE to Rutgers, Providence, barely beating DePaul twice and blowouts against L'ville, G'town , SU,Pitt and, 2nd ND game.. Yes, we did beat CINN once and ND once but, also lost games we could have won, First Rutgers, PC, Nova and lastly, Marquette. And, yes, the UCONN win was a good one over a mediocre Huskie team this year.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that we lost about 4 games that we should've won. The "barely" beating DePaul doesn't fly. Notre Dame also struggled with DePaul. Now, it seems like you're whining for the sake of.

Now, you're giving the team a backhanded compliment for beating Cincy and Notre Dame because they lost to the other teams you've mentioned.

I'll just stop short right here with your post, as I can see where you're going. Remember, you're the guy who couldn't even be happy for the team during their 5-game winning streak.

IMO, you lose me (and, probably several others on the board) with overkill. Try to be unilateral and objective in your discussions, and then your posts wouldn't consistently be dismissed (as, you're usually disingenous).

Show some positivity from time to time. It doesn't hurt to occasionally be refreshing.
Click to expand...


Are you a professional lecturer? You have taken it upon your self to reply to many of my posts as if you are on a crusade.

Why respond at all? It's not necessary to comment on people's opinions, is it? If you don't like my posts, don't read them. I rarely read yours, except when you think you're throwing down a gauntlet..

You also seem to like to engage in creating conflict.. I, like many here, want more from this team than what has been delivered so far.. I said I liked Lavin but, saw several deficiencies on the Court.. Deficiencies that most Coaches would address with their players in terms of correcting. I haven't seen a lot of that but, maybe you have. others here don't see a lot of improvement and some very bad basketball, a good percentage of the time.

Maybe you like disorganized, no strategy, poor defense and awful shooting Basketball, most St John's fans and alums don't.
 
Why wasn't he picked up by some other program during that time frame? Perhaps he had offers but, declined? I don't know, perhaps others here do?
I also was surprised that UCLA fans were so forceful in their dislike for Lavin. I could not understand it, at the time. Even some players, like Baron Davis, didn't seem real impressed with Steve as a Coach but, did respect him as a friend, etc.
Click to expand...

He had a chance to be the coach of NC State, but turned it down. I also believe he was on DePaul's short list during the time we were looking to replace Roberts.

At UCLA, any Coach there, i.e Howland, would be expected to recruit 4-5 star talent, pretty much every year and Lavin did too.. If you get that kind of talent, you're suppose to get League or NCAA contention from your teams. That's part of the expectations.
Click to expand...

You have a good point, in reference to having 4 and 5-star talent should put you in a position for the NCAA Tournament. That isn't always the case, though. There have been times when teams have underachieved despite their supposedly-talented roster. So, does the coach get credit for winning with talent the same way he gets hammered for losing (whether, he has talent or not)? Not trying to be condescending with that either.

As we've seen here and, likely when he was at UCLA, Lavin does not seem to get that talent to improve and consistently win..Fans see that some of these talented players have deficiencies in shooting, are poor free throw shooters, can't play defense, don't rebound and lastly, play one on one basketball, like they did in AAU or HS bb.
Click to expand...

Lavin seemed to always have UCLA in position to vie for a Final Four, but he would also have his up's-and-down's in the regular season. He was generally a dragon slayer (beating some very good teams), but would have a hiccup or two by losing to an inferior opponent. It also seemed that he tended to have some bad luck, by losing key players during the season or in the NCAA Tournament.

This particular team has some deficiencies (especially, their hoops IQ), but there are a couple of players who have improved, in Obekpa and Pointer. The overall team defense and rebounding (especially, Obekpa's boarding) has also gotten better. You also have the ROY in Sampson, who has had some wonderful games.

When you see teams like Gonzaga, Butler and countless others play better BB than your team with less talent, it gets frustrating..Even the most fervent admirers of Lavin have to admit he has not shown he can teach BB fundamentals or team strategy to his players.. I think that is what caused UCLA to fire him..You see all the individual talent on the floor and you also see some of the worst BB you've ever seen a team play, at times.
Click to expand...

Many of those teams you've mentioned generally have older players, who has grown with the team. Not to mention, kids who also do not lack talent either. The other key factor is those teams also generally have about 3 guys who can shoot the trey.

Lavin was fired because UCLA fans are similar to Kentucky and UNC fans.... If they aren't getting to Final Fours, then the coach is immediately on the hot seat. Lavin also came behind a national championship.

Sure, the talent can win over less talented opponents but, when the talent is equalized like it is in the BE, you need more than just individual talent to consistently win. You can also lose games regularly over teams you should be dismantling, like Murray State, UNC-Ashville, San Francisco, etc..Losses in the BE to Rutgers, Providence, barely beating DePaul twice and blowouts against L'ville, G'town , SU,Pitt and, 2nd ND game.. Yes, we did beat CINN once and ND once but, also lost games we could have won, First Rutgers, PC, Nova and lastly, Marquette. And, yes, the UCONN win was a good one over a mediocre Huskie team this year.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that we lost about 4 games that we should've won. The "barely" beating DePaul doesn't fly. Notre Dame also struggled with DePaul. Now, it seems like you're whining for the sake of.

Now, you're giving the team a backhanded compliment for beating Cincy and Notre Dame because they lost to the other teams you've mentioned.

I'll just stop short right here with your post, as I can see where you're going. Remember, you're the guy who couldn't even be happy for the team during their 5-game winning streak.

IMO, you lose me (and, probably several others on the board) with overkill. Try to be unilateral and objective in your discussions, and then your posts wouldn't consistently be dismissed (as, you're usually disingenous).

Show some positivity from time to time. It doesn't hurt to occasionally be refreshing.
Click to expand...


Are you a professional lecturer? You have taken it upon your self to reply to many of my posts as if you are on a crusade.
Click to expand...

Don't flatter yourself. I reply to many other posts on this board. Please! Do not play the victim here. I've seen you derail threads unrelated to St. John's, and turn it into a St. John's bashing.

Why respond at all? It's not necessary to comment on people's opinions, is it? If you don't like my posts, don't read them. I rarely read yours, except when you think you're throwing down a gauntlet.
Click to expand...

I responded to it because I also have an opinion. That is a secondary reason for this board.... It's to respond to one's opinion. It's obvious you read my posts due to you consistently misquoting me about the spot-up shooters discussion. I don't throw down any gauntlets. Just post what I believe.

You also seem to like to engage in creating conflict.. I, like many here, want more from this team than what has been delivered so far.. I said I liked Lavin but, saw several deficiencies on the Court.. Deficiencies that most Coaches would address with their players in terms of correcting. I haven't seen a lot of that but, maybe you have. others here don't see a lot of improvement and some very bad basketball, a good percentage of the time.
Click to expand...

Nope.... I just don't have a problem speaking my mind. If anyone who seems to like to engage in conflict, then you should look at yourself when you constantly kept calling me out while fabricating, nonetheless. If you can read and comprehend, then you'll see I agreed with some of your points. But you also come off as being disingenous. Call it what you want.... But for someone to come on the board, and piss and moan after the team has won 5 consecutive games, then that tells me something.

I'm far from being satisfied with this team. I think they need plenty of work, and I've gone on record several times stating they lack any form of hoops IQ.

Maybe you like disorganized, no strategy, poor defense and awful shooting Basketball, most St John's fans and alums don't.
Click to expand...

I never said I did like it. I've said my share on what I dislike about the team. The difference is overkill, and being disingenous (ie, backhanded compliments and not being happy after 5 straight conference wins).
 
Why wasn't he picked up by some other program during that time frame? Perhaps he had offers but, declined? I don't know, perhaps others here do?
I also was surprised that UCLA fans were so forceful in their dislike for Lavin. I could not understand it, at the time. Even some players, like Baron Davis, didn't seem real impressed with Steve as a Coach but, did respect him as a friend, etc.
Click to expand...

He had a chance to be the coach of NC State, but turned it down. I also believe he was on DePaul's short list during the time we were looking to replace Roberts.

At UCLA, any Coach there, i.e Howland, would be expected to recruit 4-5 star talent, pretty much every year and Lavin did too.. If you get that kind of talent, you're suppose to get League or NCAA contention from your teams. That's part of the expectations.
Click to expand...

You have a good point, in reference to having 4 and 5-star talent should put you in a position for the NCAA Tournament. That isn't always the case, though. There have been times when teams have underachieved despite their supposedly-talented roster. So, does the coach get credit for winning with talent the same way he gets hammered for losing (whether, he has talent or not)? Not trying to be condescending with that either.

As we've seen here and, likely when he was at UCLA, Lavin does not seem to get that talent to improve and consistently win..Fans see that some of these talented players have deficiencies in shooting, are poor free throw shooters, can't play defense, don't rebound and lastly, play one on one basketball, like they did in AAU or HS bb.
Click to expand...

Lavin seemed to always have UCLA in position to vie for a Final Four, but he would also have his up's-and-down's in the regular season. He was generally a dragon slayer (beating some very good teams), but would have a hiccup or two by losing to an inferior opponent. It also seemed that he tended to have some bad luck, by losing key players during the season or in the NCAA Tournament.

This particular team has some deficiencies (especially, their hoops IQ), but there are a couple of players who have improved, in Obekpa and Pointer. The overall team defense and rebounding (especially, Obekpa's boarding) has also gotten better. You also have the ROY in Sampson, who has had some wonderful games.

When you see teams like Gonzaga, Butler and countless others play better BB than your team with less talent, it gets frustrating..Even the most fervent admirers of Lavin have to admit he has not shown he can teach BB fundamentals or team strategy to his players.. I think that is what caused UCLA to fire him..You see all the individual talent on the floor and you also see some of the worst BB you've ever seen a team play, at times.
Click to expand...

Many of those teams you've mentioned generally have older players, who has grown with the team. Not to mention, kids who also do not lack talent either. The other key factor is those teams also generally have about 3 guys who can shoot the trey.

Lavin was fired because UCLA fans are similar to Kentucky and UNC fans.... If they aren't getting to Final Fours, then the coach is immediately on the hot seat. Lavin also came behind a national championship.

Sure, the talent can win over less talented opponents but, when the talent is equalized like it is in the BE, you need more than just individual talent to consistently win. You can also lose games regularly over teams you should be dismantling, like Murray State, UNC-Ashville, San Francisco, etc..Losses in the BE to Rutgers, Providence, barely beating DePaul twice and blowouts against L'ville, G'town , SU,Pitt and, 2nd ND game.. Yes, we did beat CINN once and ND once but, also lost games we could have won, First Rutgers, PC, Nova and lastly, Marquette. And, yes, the UCONN win was a good one over a mediocre Huskie team this year.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that we lost about 4 games that we should've won. The "barely" beating DePaul doesn't fly. Notre Dame also struggled with DePaul. Now, it seems like you're whining for the sake of.

Now, you're giving the team a backhanded compliment for beating Cincy and Notre Dame because they lost to the other teams you've mentioned.

I'll just stop short right here with your post, as I can see where you're going. Remember, you're the guy who couldn't even be happy for the team during their 5-game winning streak.

IMO, you lose me (and, probably several others on the board) with overkill. Try to be unilateral and objective in your discussions, and then your posts wouldn't consistently be dismissed (as, you're usually disingenous).

Show some positivity from time to time. It doesn't hurt to occasionally be refreshing.
Click to expand...


Are you a professional lecturer? You have taken it upon your self to reply to many of my posts as if you are on a crusade.
Click to expand...

Don't flatter yourself. I reply to many other posts on this board.

Why respond at all? It's not necessary to comment on people's opinions, is it? If you don't like my posts, don't read them. I rarely read yours, except when you think you're throwing down a gauntlet.
Click to expand...

I responded to it because I also have an opinion. That is a secondary reason for this board.... It's to respond to one's opinion. It's obvious you read my posts due to you consistently misquoting me about having shooters. I don't throw down any gauntlets. Just post what I believe.

You also seem to like to engage in creating conflict.. I, like many here, want more from this team than what has been delivered so far.. I said I liked Lavin but, saw several deficiencies on the Court.. Deficiencies that most Coaches would address with their players in terms of correcting. I haven't seen a lot of that but, maybe you have. others here don't see a lot of improvement and some very bad basketball, a good percentage of the time.
Click to expand...

Nope.... I just like calling out BS when I see it. If anyone who seems to like to engage in conflict, then you should look at yourself when you constantly kept calling me out while fabricating, nonetheless. If you can read and comprehend, then you'll see I agreed with some of your points. But you also come off as being disingenous. Call it what you want.... But for someone to come on the board, and piss and moan after the team has won 5 consecutive games, then that tells me something.

I'm far from being satisfied with this team. I think they need plenty of work, and I've gone on record several times stating they lack any form of hoops IQ. I'm not

Maybe you like disorganized, no strategy, poor defense and awful shooting Basketball, most St John's fans and alums don't.
Click to expand...

I never said I did like it. I've said my share on what I dislike about the team. The difference is overkill, and being disingenous (ie, backhanded compliments and not being happy after 5 straight conference wins).
Click to expand...


You're still lecturing, shall I take notes?
 
So Dink, quickly on another topic, you've got to reluctantly credit the Hoyas this year , no ?
 
I was very excited when I learned Lavin was hired to replace Roberts.. I knew he had done a good job at UCLA but, also know that is a program that would not tolerate losing..UCLA, like Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Duke, NC, always expect their teams to be NCAA contenders.. I must admit though, I did not give much thought to the fact that, Lavin spent 8 years as a ESPN Color analyst before taking the SJU job.

Why wasn't he picked up by some other program during that time frame? Perhaps he had offers but, declined? I don't know, perhaps others here do?
I also was surprised that UCLA fans were so forceful in their dislike for Lavin. I could not understand it, at the time. Even some players, like Baron Davis, didn't seem real impressed with Steve as a Coach but, did respect him as a friend, etc.

At UCLA, any Coach there, i.e Howland, would be expected to recruit 4-5 star talent, pretty much every year and Lavin did too.. If you get that kind of talent, you're suppose to get League or NCAA contention from your teams. That's part of the expectations.

As we've seen here and, likely when he was at UCLA, Lavin does not seem to get that talent to improve and consistently win..Fans see that some of these talented players have deficiencies in shooting, are poor free throw shooters, can't play defense, don't rebound and lastly, play one on one basketball, like they did in AAU or HS bb.

When you see teams like Gonzaga, Butler and countless others play better BB than your team with less talent, it gets frustrating..Even the most fervent admirers of Lavin have to admit he has not shown he can teach BB fundamentals or team strategy to his players.. I think that is what caused UCLA to fire him..You see all the individual talent on the floor and you also see some of the worst BB you've ever seen a team play, at times.

Sure, the talent can win over less talented opponents but, when the talent is equalized like it is in the BE, you need more than just individual talent to consistently win. You can also lose games regularly over teams you should be dismantling, like Murray State, UNC-Ashville, San Francisco, etc..Losses in the BE to Rutgers, Providence, barely beating DePaul twice and blowouts against L'ville, G'town , SU,Pitt and, 2nd ND game.. Yes, we did beat CINN once and ND once but, also lost games we could have won, First Rutgers, PC, Nova and lastly, Marquette. And, yes, the UCONN win was a good one over a mediocre Huskie team this year.

Lavin has done a great job in selling the University and improving its' basket ball profile in the rebuilding stage but, at some point he's expected to contend for the BE Championship and possibly a sweet 16, elite 8 performance level.Will he?

We've had, with 1 exception, the 2011 team with Hardy,DJ,etc, 12 years of awful BB and, while fan expectations have deteriorated as a result for many, there are some of us who saw nothing but, tournament qualifying BB for over 30 years..Louie always made a tourney, even without the best talent..

Those teams played hard, disciplined, team ball. Even the Mullin, Berry, Jackson teams always ran the same simple stuff as the Sealy, Werdann,teams did. It worked.

So, I think a lot of the frustration with Lavin is that the individual talent doesn't seem to improve the team's performance and that player weaknesses don't seem to be turned into strengths.. Shouldn't CO be able to shoot 50% on his free throws by now? How about him learning to box out? I 'm not picking on him because I like his attitude and his potential but, potential has to be turned into performance at some point.

I believe too, that any fan has to recognize that this group needs to play better as a unit and not, 5 guys running up and down the Court with no strategy or set plan.

These are some of the reasons why questions are raised about Lavin's Coaching.. I think they have some validity in many fans minds. I like Steve and his persona.. He's a great ambassador for the school but, he's the BB Coach and Coaching is teaching..Can we say his group of recruits have improved individually or, in their team play? They've had 2 years really. I count last year with Dunlap , shouldn't we? Sure, Sampson and CO are freshman but, very talented ones and were expected to contribute from day one. Sampson has and CO has too, in a limited way. So, the inexperience thing doesn't float.
Click to expand...


As far as players not improving, what about the player's responsibility? Would not most of us on this site work on our own to improve if we were motivated and desiring of getting better?

Did Louie force Chris Mullin to take the damn gym key and shoot, endless shots?????
I like Coach Lavin. Glad he's here. Don't put it all on his shoulders.
To some current players get your backsides to the free throw line instead of chilling at the local chill place (wherever that may be)

all the best
 
It seems to be the opinion of many that a coach could suddenly, as if by magic, teach players to box out, shoot free throws better, etc. These are habits formed since these players first picked up a basketball. They have been through AAU, high school, prep school and junior college coaches, and been through numerous skills clinics as well. Yet these habits still exist. You can't change years of muscle memory and years of poor positioning in a year. Some never get it. Why couldn't Davey Johnson just get Hojo to hit the curveball? It just doesn't work that way. There is also a mistake being made equating our superior athleticism with talent. We have players that are behind on essential skill sets. The great coaches won because they had great players. They coach a system they know. When they get players that already come with the skill sets they are looking for, it works. Maybe not right away, but soon. Is Calipari so much smarter than the average coach? He needed 4 or 5 pros on his team to win his first title.

You win with talent, and we don't have enough of it. No one we flirted with hiring as a coach is better at bringing it than coach Lavin. Our need is better players, not a better strategist on the sidelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top