[quote="Making Plays" post=388096][quote="SJU61982" post=388079]Again, it seems like if you want to play for Anderson, you have to be willing to forget everything you've learned in the past, and do it his way. While his way is very exciting for most, it could lead to certain issues re: player selection/recruiting. This was an issue with the Arkansas brass, apparently, so I'll be watching this closely.
That being said, I'm glad we got this past year out of LJ. I didn't want another 10 win season. 17-15 is still at least something to build on, and something to sell to recruits.[/quote]
Not sure where you got that, but that wasn't an issue with him at Arkansas. Was essentially a new AD that wanted his own own hire, and just said at Arkansas just making the tournament isn't enough we need to be competing for national championships, those were his words for the reason he fired him. And of course we're in Arkansas, so there's other politics in play that I won't get into, you can watch Nolan's documentary for all of that.
But, there were plenty of really good players at Arkansas that played for CMA that had great numbers and was able to showcase themselves to NBA teams...Portis, Qualls, Macon, Barford, Hannahs, Clarke, Gafford, etc. All of these guys either played NBA minutes before or currently on the cusp of making an NBA roster.
It's a common misconception that if you play for CMA just because you're not playing 35 MPG you can't showcase what you can do. Portis was SEC POY and first round draft pick in the same system. Daniel Gafford went from a 4-star recruit not a single draft board, or even having a draft profile coming out of high school, to a feature player in the SEC and leaving early and getting drafted after just 2 years.[/quote]
What I was getting at is that he's been accused of being married to the system, not making adjustments, etc. Usually, that filters down to the kind of player you recruit, as well. For example, you may think one guy is a little less talented then another, but a better fit for the system, so you take the lesser guy instead, and as such, you're recruiting looks worse then it might otherwise be. Usually, it's at the point guard position, but not always, and John Belien is a good example of a coach who made that work (and even he loosened the reins, and was more flexible at Michigan).
Anderson comes across as a coach who players are going to have to adjust their games to him, because he likely won't adjust much to his personnel (I actually think he did a bit this past year, to protect Heron - we played better after Heron went down, because Anderson was able to play his preferred style more. No one was wrong in that, IMO). He's not going to be like Pat Riley, who changed his coaching philosophy 100% from the Lakers to the Knicks, because he saw the kind of players he had. He adjusted to his players. Anderson's players will have to adjust to him. That could certainly work, just don't expect 4 and 5 star recruits, or a high ceiling (fortunately, I think this past year was pretty close to the floor we will get, under him, and that's pretty good).