Mike Anderson - Recruiting, Coaching, Etc.

[quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396387][quote="fordham96" post=396378][quote="lawmanfan" post=396342][quote="fordham96" post=396326]
Btw Lavin went 46-44 and went to 2 NCAAs and 2 NITs at SJU. A second tier BE program as you stated in a MUCH DEEPER TOUGHER BE. That is comparable to Andersons run at Arky, no? Did u stand up for Lavin when he got fired? I think you owe him an apology, no?[/quote]

As reluctant as I am to get dragged into another Lavin conversation:

1. I give him next to zero credit for the first NCAA appearance with a team full of somebody else's seniors and Dunlap to do the actual coaching.
2. He's a godawful basketball coach.
3. He is a good salesman but with SJU to sell instead of UCLA that amounted to taking chances on far too many players who had athletic ability but character concerns.
4. It's true that the residue of the unfocused turmoil of his tenure is what you listed: two NITs and an NCAA appearance along with a .500 record.

IMHO the bottom line is that Lavin is a coach who rose or fell based almost entirely on the talent of the players he brought in (and if you go back to his UCLA years there's an argument to be made that he was actually a detriment given the talent he brought in there).

Anderson is the polar opposite - he's an absolutely professional coach who brings in character players, develops them, and gets the most out of them. And from a results standpoint I'm pretty sure he'll do better than Lavin's .500 record here as well as the postseason record. He's just a far better fit for the platform he has to work with here than Lavin was.

Good topic to revisit in 4 years when we can compare the body of work at the same point in time. Assuming we spot Anderson a hypothetical NIT appearance for last season, my guess is that the post-season figures will be about the same but the overall record will be much better. But I think the difference is that Anderson will keep moving forward from there as opposed to being in the broadcast booth.[/quote]

You say these opinions like they are fact. YOU give him zero credit for year. This one is my favorite, he gets no credit for coaching a team that never did anything for 3 years but go 5-13, 6-12, 6-12 and get their coach fired and was picked THIRTEENTH. Th idea that he did not recruit the kids is somehow HIS FAULT. So to get credit for coaching a team that he COACHED is to only be able to coach kids YOU recruit. Really, that is the standard? And give me a break about Dunlap, SJU's worst seasonin his 5 years was the year Laving barely coached. Does he get credit for those LOSSES too under your standard no. But back to coaching someone else's players is that really your standard. Someone should have told Lavin to cut all of his incoming players that year because YOU don't believe he would get credit. He should give back his salary. I mean this sincerely, this is literally the dumbest argument made about his first year.

The other part of this argument is it is made out of pure convenience. Simply put it is CONVENIENT for you to dismiss his first year because you say he did not do a good job. Hence I can't give him credit for something that was good, therefore I have to INVENT a dumb argument as opposed to admitting my mistake. Except of course I helped you with that.

This will be my last thing, you are now saying that his recruiting is so good that he failed to live up to it and that was a negative, which I don't necessarily disagree with. I have said the team he had for year 4 even without Harkless was as talented a team as we have seen since the early Jarvis days That's fine. The flip side to that is evidently we should hope a coach recruits mediocre that way if he coaches mediocre we can say he lived up to expectations?

The last part about giving Coach time is something I have been saying repeatedly. All I said was Coach was FIRED from Arkansas for performance. That is an unmitigated FACT that again is not subject to your opinion. And something you faile to mention again and again and again....[/quote]

Love how certain posters on here have no problem absolutely trashing Lavin who was nothing but a class act while he coached here, but will cry if you criticize their precious CMA. Lavin had to overcome cancer, his father dying, and the Norm Roberts era, and still brought in the best talent SJU has had since the 90s. There is no doubt in my mind if he was given an extension like he deserved we'd be in a much better place right now.

Lavin gets no credit for turning around a group of kids who had no success under Norm Roberts whatsoever, but CMA gets praise for the "great" job he did last year with Mullin's players. Way to be completely hypocritical.

The talent level we had last season is likely the highest it will ever be under CMA, so hope you're ready to be just about .500 every year. I don't see any LJ Figeroas, Mustafa Herons, or heck even Greg Williams caliber players coming here anytime soon.[/quote]

When did people start trashing Lavin, though? Was it before his cancer, or after his cancer when he seemingly stopped working?

And I think a lot of posters, myself included, think Dunlap was the X's and O's brains behind the early success. He's the one who implemented the defense we played. It was a great combo with Lavin, who is a real rah rah, master motivator type. CMA is getting praise because he got a lot out of last year's team through solid coaching. Mullin wasn't doing anything with last year's team.

I like Lavin a lot. From what I've heard he's a genuinely nice guy. He just wasn't that great of a coach.
 
[quote="L J S A" post=396388][quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396387][quote="fordham96" post=396378][quote="lawmanfan" post=396342][quote="fordham96" post=396326]
Btw Lavin went 46-44 and went to 2 NCAAs and 2 NITs at SJU. A second tier BE program as you stated in a MUCH DEEPER TOUGHER BE. That is comparable to Andersons run at Arky, no? Did u stand up for Lavin when he got fired? I think you owe him an apology, no?[/quote]

As reluctant as I am to get dragged into another Lavin conversation:

1. I give him next to zero credit for the first NCAA appearance with a team full of somebody else's seniors and Dunlap to do the actual coaching.
2. He's a godawful basketball coach.
3. He is a good salesman but with SJU to sell instead of UCLA that amounted to taking chances on far too many players who had athletic ability but character concerns.
4. It's true that the residue of the unfocused turmoil of his tenure is what you listed: two NITs and an NCAA appearance along with a .500 record.

IMHO the bottom line is that Lavin is a coach who rose or fell based almost entirely on the talent of the players he brought in (and if you go back to his UCLA years there's an argument to be made that he was actually a detriment given the talent he brought in there).

Anderson is the polar opposite - he's an absolutely professional coach who brings in character players, develops them, and gets the most out of them. And from a results standpoint I'm pretty sure he'll do better than Lavin's .500 record here as well as the postseason record. He's just a far better fit for the platform he has to work with here than Lavin was.

Good topic to revisit in 4 years when we can compare the body of work at the same point in time. Assuming we spot Anderson a hypothetical NIT appearance for last season, my guess is that the post-season figures will be about the same but the overall record will be much better. But I think the difference is that Anderson will keep moving forward from there as opposed to being in the broadcast booth.[/quote]

You say these opinions like they are fact. YOU give him zero credit for year. This one is my favorite, he gets no credit for coaching a team that never did anything for 3 years but go 5-13, 6-12, 6-12 and get their coach fired and was picked THIRTEENTH. Th idea that he did not recruit the kids is somehow HIS FAULT. So to get credit for coaching a team that he COACHED is to only be able to coach kids YOU recruit. Really, that is the standard? And give me a break about Dunlap, SJU's worst seasonin his 5 years was the year Laving barely coached. Does he get credit for those LOSSES too under your standard no. But back to coaching someone else's players is that really your standard. Someone should have told Lavin to cut all of his incoming players that year because YOU don't believe he would get credit. He should give back his salary. I mean this sincerely, this is literally the dumbest argument made about his first year.

The other part of this argument is it is made out of pure convenience. Simply put it is CONVENIENT for you to dismiss his first year because you say he did not do a good job. Hence I can't give him credit for something that was good, therefore I have to INVENT a dumb argument as opposed to admitting my mistake. Except of course I helped you with that.

This will be my last thing, you are now saying that his recruiting is so good that he failed to live up to it and that was a negative, which I don't necessarily disagree with. I have said the team he had for year 4 even without Harkless was as talented a team as we have seen since the early Jarvis days That's fine. The flip side to that is evidently we should hope a coach recruits mediocre that way if he coaches mediocre we can say he lived up to expectations?

The last part about giving Coach time is something I have been saying repeatedly. All I said was Coach was FIRED from Arkansas for performance. That is an unmitigated FACT that again is not subject to your opinion. And something you faile to mention again and again and again....[/quote]

Love how certain posters on here have no problem absolutely trashing Lavin who was nothing but a class act while he coached here, but will cry if you criticize their precious CMA. Lavin had to overcome cancer, his father dying, and the Norm Roberts era, and still brought in the best talent SJU has had since the 90s. There is no doubt in my mind if he was given an extension like he deserved we'd be in a much better place right now.

Lavin gets no credit for turning around a group of kids who had no success under Norm Roberts whatsoever, but CMA gets praise for the "great" job he did last year with Mullin's players. Way to be completely hypocritical.

The talent level we had last season is likely the highest it will ever be under CMA, so hope you're ready to be just about .500 every year. I don't see any LJ Figeroas, Mustafa Herons, or heck even Greg Williams caliber players coming here anytime soon.[/quote]

When did people start trashing Lavin, though? Was it before his cancer, or after his cancer when he seemingly stopped working?

And I think a lot of posters, myself included, think Dunlap was the X's and O's brains behind the early success. He's the one who implemented the defense we played. It was a great combo with Lavin, who is a real rah rah, master motivator type. CMA is getting praise because he got a lot out of last year's team through solid coaching. Mullin wasn't doing anything with last year's team.

I like Lavin a lot. From what I've heard he's a genuinely nice guy. He just wasn't that great of a coach.[/quote]

I don't disagree with the fact that CMA probably did a much better job than Mullin would have done with last year's team. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone saying they give no credit to Lavin whatsoever for making the NCAAs his first year because they were Norm's players, but then turning around and praising the job CMA did with Mullin's players last year.

As far as CMA being a "far better fit" than Lavin at SJU... on what planet do you live on to think that? A coach who has only coached in the deep south his entire career, has no roots in the northeast whatsoever, and is proving he can't recruit here is a better fit than a guy who loved the limelight of NYC, brought us to two NCAA tournaments in 5 years and brought us the best talent we've had since the 90s?

I know fractions are hard but making the tournament 2 out of 5 years is better than the 3 out of 8 that CMA did at Arkansas. I keep hearing what he did at Arkansas would be a great benchmark for him to accomplish at SJU.

Now let's compare CMA to a random former SJU coach since I keep hearing that CMA's resume is so great, and better than any coach we've had since Lou....

Coach A: .630 winning percentage, 8 NCAA tournament appearances in 12 years, has gotten to the Sweet 16 or better 5 times.

Coach B: .642 winning percentage, 9 NCAA tournament appearances in 18 years as a coach, has gotten to the Sweet 16 or better 2 times.

Coach A is Lavin obviously. Coach A seems to have the better resume to me no? So I think calling him a "godawful basketball" coach is pretty misinformed don't you?
 
[quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396389]

As far as CMA being a "far better fit" than Lavin at SJU... on what planet do you live on to think that? A coach who has only coached in the deep south his entire career, has no roots in the northeast whatsoever, and is proving he can't recruit here is a better fit than a guy who loved the limelight of NYC, brought us to two NCAA tournaments in 5 years and brought us the best talent we've had since the 90s?

I know fractions are hard but making the tournament 2 out of 5 years is better than the 3 out of 8 that CMA did at Arkansas. I keep hearing what he did at Arkansas would be a great benchmark for him to accomplish at SJU.

Now let's compare CMA to a random former SJU coach since I keep hearing that CMA's resume is so great, and better than any coach we've had since Lou....

Coach A: .630 winning percentage, 8 NCAA tournament appearances in 12 years, has gotten to the Sweet 16 or better 5 times.

Coach B: .642 winning percentage, 9 NCAA tournament appearances in 18 years as a coach, has gotten to the Sweet 16 or better 2 times.

Coach A is Lavin obviously. Coach A seems to have the better resume to me no? So I think calling him a "godawful basketball" coach is pretty misinformed don't you?[/quote]

I'm not the one who said that, but I'm pretty sure people were worried that Lavin wasn't a fit either. He's from San Francisco, and made his name in LA. Neither of those places are like NYC at all.

As for his record . . . look at the players he had to work with. UCLA pretty much sells itself. You get enough SoCal horses and you'll get the wins. As for the X's and O's part, maybe we should ask Baron Davis: "We should have a banner up there: the only team to make the tournament without a coach.”
 
[quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396389][quote="L J S A" post=396388][quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396387][quote="fordham96" post=396378][quote="lawmanfan" post=396342][quote="fordham96" post=396326]
Btw Lavin went 46-44 and went to 2 NCAAs and 2 NITs at SJU. A second tier BE program as you stated in a MUCH DEEPER TOUGHER BE. That is comparable to Andersons run at Arky, no? Did u stand up for Lavin when he got fired? I think you owe him an apology, no?[/quote]

As reluctant as I am to get dragged into another Lavin conversation:

1. I give him next to zero credit for the first NCAA appearance with a team full of somebody else's seniors and Dunlap to do the actual coaching.
2. He's a godawful basketball coach.
3. He is a good salesman but with SJU to sell instead of UCLA that amounted to taking chances on far too many players who had athletic ability but character concerns.
4. It's true that the residue of the unfocused turmoil of his tenure is what you listed: two NITs and an NCAA appearance along with a .500 record.

IMHO the bottom line is that Lavin is a coach who rose or fell based almost entirely on the talent of the players he brought in (and if you go back to his UCLA years there's an argument to be made that he was actually a detriment given the talent he brought in there).

Anderson is the polar opposite - he's an absolutely professional coach who brings in character players, develops them, and gets the most out of them. And from a results standpoint I'm pretty sure he'll do better than Lavin's .500 record here as well as the postseason record. He's just a far better fit for the platform he has to work with here than Lavin was.

Good topic to revisit in 4 years when we can compare the body of work at the same point in time. Assuming we spot Anderson a hypothetical NIT appearance for last season, my guess is that the post-season figures will be about the same but the overall record will be much better. But I think the difference is that Anderson will keep moving forward from there as opposed to being in the broadcast booth.[/quote]

You say these opinions like they are fact. YOU give him zero credit for year. This one is my favorite, he gets no credit for coaching a team that never did anything for 3 years but go 5-13, 6-12, 6-12 and get their coach fired and was picked THIRTEENTH. Th idea that he did not recruit the kids is somehow HIS FAULT. So to get credit for coaching a team that he COACHED is to only be able to coach kids YOU recruit. Really, that is the standard? And give me a break about Dunlap, SJU's worst seasonin his 5 years was the year Laving barely coached. Does he get credit for those LOSSES too under your standard no. But back to coaching someone else's players is that really your standard. Someone should have told Lavin to cut all of his incoming players that year because YOU don't believe he would get credit. He should give back his salary. I mean this sincerely, this is literally the dumbest argument made about his first year.

The other part of this argument is it is made out of pure convenience. Simply put it is CONVENIENT for you to dismiss his first year because you say he did not do a good job. Hence I can't give him credit for something that was good, therefore I have to INVENT a dumb argument as opposed to admitting my mistake. Except of course I helped you with that.

This will be my last thing, you are now saying that his recruiting is so good that he failed to live up to it and that was a negative, which I don't necessarily disagree with. I have said the team he had for year 4 even without Harkless was as talented a team as we have seen since the early Jarvis days That's fine. The flip side to that is evidently we should hope a coach recruits mediocre that way if he coaches mediocre we can say he lived up to expectations?

The last part about giving Coach time is something I have been saying repeatedly. All I said was Coach was FIRED from Arkansas for performance. That is an unmitigated FACT that again is not subject to your opinion. And something you faile to mention again and again and again....[/quote]

Love how certain posters on here have no problem absolutely trashing Lavin who was nothing but a class act while he coached here, but will cry if you criticize their precious CMA. Lavin had to overcome cancer, his father dying, and the Norm Roberts era, and still brought in the best talent SJU has had since the 90s. There is no doubt in my mind if he was given an extension like he deserved we'd be in a much better place right now.

Lavin gets no credit for turning around a group of kids who had no success under Norm Roberts whatsoever, but CMA gets praise for the "great" job he did last year with Mullin's players. Way to be completely hypocritical.

The talent level we had last season is likely the highest it will ever be under CMA, so hope you're ready to be just about .500 every year. I don't see any LJ Figeroas, Mustafa Herons, or heck even Greg Williams caliber players coming here anytime soon.[/quote]

When did people start trashing Lavin, though? Was it before his cancer, or after his cancer when he seemingly stopped working?

And I think a lot of posters, myself included, think Dunlap was the X's and O's brains behind the early success. He's the one who implemented the defense we played. It was a great combo with Lavin, who is a real rah rah, master motivator type. CMA is getting praise because he got a lot out of last year's team through solid coaching. Mullin wasn't doing anything with last year's team.

I like Lavin a lot. From what I've heard he's a genuinely nice guy. He just wasn't that great of a coach.[/quote]

I don't disagree with the fact that CMA probably did a much better job than Mullin would have done with last year's team. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone saying they give no credit to Lavin whatsoever for making the NCAAs his first year because they were Norm's players, but then turning around and praising the job CMA did with Mullin's players last year.

As far as CMA being a "far better fit" than Lavin at SJU... on what planet do you live on to think that? A coach who has only coached in the deep south his entire career, has no roots in the northeast whatsoever, and is proving he can't recruit here is a better fit than a guy who loved the limelight of NYC, brought us to two NCAA tournaments in 5 years and brought us the best talent we've had since the 90s?

I know fractions are hard but making the tournament 2 out of 5 years is better than the 3 out of 8 that CMA did at Arkansas. I keep hearing what he did at Arkansas would be a great benchmark for him to accomplish at SJU.

Now let's compare CMA to a random former SJU coach since I keep hearing that CMA's resume is so great, and better than any coach we've had since Lou....

Coach A: .630 winning percentage, 8 NCAA tournament appearances in 12 years, has gotten to the Sweet 16 or better 5 times.

Coach B: .642 winning percentage, 9 NCAA tournament appearances in 18 years as a coach, has gotten to the Sweet 16 or better 2 times.

Coach A is Lavin obviously. Coach A seems to have the better resume to me no? So I think calling him a "godawful basketball" coach is pretty misinformed don't you?[/quote]

With Lavin there is obviously alot more to the story of him being some nice guy who got cancer, recruited amazingly, and made 2 NCAA tournaments. There is no need to rehash all of that, but let's not forget the reason he got fired was because he seemingly stopped recruiting. Should he have been extended, he was about to enter into a full rebuild because he failed to ever balance the classes which were out of whack since his first season.

I liked Lavin, it just unfortunately didn't work out. He brought in some great recruits but also some kids who never even made it to campus.
 
I think Paultzman's point is the most salient one in this entire thread... of all the possible coaches that were under consideration when Mullin left/was fired, Mike Anderson was BY FAR the most accomplished of the bunch. It's not even close.

Hurley turned us down (I don't think he was ever seriously considering us), Moser turned us down, Odom turned us down, Cluess would have taken the job in a minute but we didn't want him, and we were negotiating with James Jones from freaking Yale!

I would rather have Mike Anderson right now than any of them - including Hurley.

Apparently some would argue that Lavin should not have been fired - and that's a fair discussion to have. Lavin showed us the kind of coach he was - brought in good talent but didn't do much with it. He made some important improvements to the program, and he was a good spokesperson for the university. He had success, but probably not as much as he should have had given the level of talent he assembled. His second to last year was a talented and deep team that should have been primed to make a run in the NCAAs. Instead we barely won 20 games and lost in an embarrassment in the first round of the NIT. And as the years progressed he took chances on some kids. Some who made it to campus and were difficult (Jordan, Obekpa) and others who never made it to campus at all (Keith Thomas). My guess is that the last few Lavin years showed you where we would have been if he had been retained. Around 20 wins, always on the bubble, and an early exit whenever we did make the Dance. Not terrible, but we probably should expect better.

Given our experience, how can you look at Mike Anderson - his obvious decency and his history of success - and not feel that he is the best leader for our program since Looie retired? (You can say the same thing about Mike Cragg as well - he is by far the most professional AD we've had in more than 20 years.) At this point in our history, given all the bumbling and missteps by the St. John's administration for all these years, Mike Anderson is probably a better coach than we deserve.
 
[quote="RedmanMike" post=396395]I think Paultzman's point is the most salient one in this entire thread..[/quote]

Hurtful, but OK, Mike. ;)
 
Paultzman's is good but props to fordham96 for inspiring other users to use the word "salient"
 
God, I can't wait until we start playing 16 months from now, and we can finally talk about something other than this.
 
[quote="RedmanMike" post=396395]I think Paultzman's point is the most salient one in this entire thread... of all the possible coaches that were under consideration when Mullin left/was fired, Mike Anderson was BY FAR the most accomplished of the bunch. It's not even close.

Hurley turned us down (I don't think he was ever seriously considering us), Moser turned us down, Odom turned us down, Cluess would have taken the job in a minute but we didn't want him, and we were negotiating with James Jones from freaking Yale!

I would rather have Mike Anderson right now than any of them - including Hurley.

Apparently some would argue that Lavin should not have been fired - and that's a fair discussion to have. Lavin showed us the kind of coach he was - brought in good talent but didn't do much with it. He made some important improvements to the program, and he was a good spokesperson for the university. He had success, but probably not as much as he should have had given the level of talent he assembled. His second to last year was a talented and deep team that should have been primed to make a run in the NCAAs. Instead we barely won 20 games and lost in an embarrassment in the first round of the NIT. And as the years progressed he took chances on some kids. Some who made it to campus and were difficult (Jordan, Obekpa) and others who never made it to campus at all (Keith Thomas). My guess is that the last few Lavin years showed you where we would have been if he had been retained. Around 20 wins, always on the bubble, and an early exit whenever we did make the Dance. Not terrible, but we probably should expect better.

Given our experience, how can you look at Mike Anderson - his obvious decency and his history of success - and not feel that he is the best leader for our program since Looie retired? (You can say the same thing about Mike Cragg as well - he is by far the most professional AD we've had in more than 20 years.) At this point in our history, given all the bumbling and missteps by the St. John's administration for all these years, Mike Anderson is probably a better coach than we deserve.[/quote]

Non-pandemic Mike Anderson level success (win the NIT or a first round NCAA game) will have far greater recruiting impact filtered through the NC City media machine. Build it, they will come.
 
As far as recruiting goes, if we (CMA) build it, they (Better Recruits) will come.
 
[quote="Paultzman" post=396357]I will judge staff recruiting over three cycles.

Re: CMA as HC, who the hell are we kidding? Net of a competent guy like Cluess, there was no one knocking down SJU door with a proven track record like Anderson. The job here is not only tough, but not a destination job by any stretch. Porter Moser looks like he used the job here as leverage for a raise and imo is not in the same league as CMA. Anderson dropped from the sky willing to tackle the SJU challenge and finish his career on a positive note. Celebrate that.

At the end of the day we will find out if he can put a roster together to compete consistently in the Big East to complement his sideline, player development abilities. If not so be it, but there is no doubt imo landing him was very fortunate for such a mediocre program that has struggled far more than it has succeeded for many years.[/quote]

Agree on all counts. Anderson didn't exactly drop from the sky. He wasn't on our radar at all, but when Cragg reached out to his network for suggestions, Anderson's name came up. Mike C. has publicly said that in one phone call, he thought he had the right man, and the face to face and everything after confirmed it.

Anderson is a country boy who has taken to NY (and his wife too) like a duck to water. My understanding is they love it here. He can handle the press and the tough scrutiny, and loves NYC. Expect him to be here for as long as SJU wants him.
 
Last edited:
[quote="fuchsia" post=396405][quote="RedmanMike" post=396395]I think Paultzman's point is the most salient one in this entire thread... of all the possible coaches that were under consideration when Mullin left/was fired, Mike Anderson was BY FAR the most accomplished of the bunch. It's not even close.

Hurley turned us down (I don't think he was ever seriously considering us), Moser turned us down, Odom turned us down, Cluess would have taken the job in a minute but we didn't want him, and we were negotiating with James Jones from freaking Yale!

I would rather have Mike Anderson right now than any of them - including Hurley.

Apparently some would argue that Lavin should not have been fired - and that's a fair discussion to have. Lavin showed us the kind of coach he was - brought in good talent but didn't do much with it. He made some important improvements to the program, and he was a good spokesperson for the university. He had success, but probably not as much as he should have had given the level of talent he assembled. His second to last year was a talented and deep team that should have been primed to make a run in the NCAAs. Instead we barely won 20 games and lost in an embarrassment in the first round of the NIT. And as the years progressed he took chances on some kids. Some who made it to campus and were difficult (Jordan, Obekpa) and others who never made it to campus at all (Keith Thomas). My guess is that the last few Lavin years showed you where we would have been if he had been retained. Around 20 wins, always on the bubble, and an early exit whenever we did make the Dance. Not terrible, but we probably should expect better.

Given our experience, how can you look at Mike Anderson - his obvious decency and his history of success - and not feel that he is the best leader for our program since Looie retired? (You can say the same thing about Mike Cragg as well - he is by far the most professional AD we've had in more than 20 years.) At this point in our history, given all the bumbling and missteps by the St. John's administration for all these years, Mike Anderson is probably a better coach than we deserve.[/quote]

Non-pandemic Mike Anderson level success (win the NIT or a first round NCAA game) will have far greater recruiting impact filtered through the NC City media machine. Build it, they will come.[/quote] Winning a game in the NCAA tournament is far from the gold standard. But for us long suffering fans it seems like it. I can’t even remember the last time we won a game, it’s been far to long.
 
[quote="richard A Steinfeld" post=396413][quote="fuchsia" post=396405][quote="RedmanMike" post=396395]I think Paultzman's point is the most salient one in this entire thread... of all the possible coaches that were under consideration when Mullin left/was fired, Mike Anderson was BY FAR the most accomplished of the bunch. It's not even close.

Hurley turned us down (I don't think he was ever seriously considering us), Moser turned us down, Odom turned us down, Cluess would have taken the job in a minute but we didn't want him, and we were negotiating with James Jones from freaking Yale!

I would rather have Mike Anderson right now than any of them - including Hurley.

Apparently some would argue that Lavin should not have been fired - and that's a fair discussion to have. Lavin showed us the kind of coach he was - brought in good talent but didn't do much with it. He made some important improvements to the program, and he was a good spokesperson for the university. He had success, but probably not as much as he should have had given the level of talent he assembled. His second to last year was a talented and deep team that should have been primed to make a run in the NCAAs. Instead we barely won 20 games and lost in an embarrassment in the first round of the NIT. And as the years progressed he took chances on some kids. Some who made it to campus and were difficult (Jordan, Obekpa) and others who never made it to campus at all (Keith Thomas). My guess is that the last few Lavin years showed you where we would have been if he had been retained. Around 20 wins, always on the bubble, and an early exit whenever we did make the Dance. Not terrible, but we probably should expect better.

Given our experience, how can you look at Mike Anderson - his obvious decency and his history of success - and not feel that he is the best leader for our program since Looie retired? (You can say the same thing about Mike Cragg as well - he is by far the most professional AD we've had in more than 20 years.) At this point in our history, given all the bumbling and missteps by the St. John's administration for all these years, Mike Anderson is probably a better coach than we deserve.[/quote]

Non-pandemic Mike Anderson level success (win the NIT or a first round NCAA game) will have far greater recruiting impact filtered through the NC City media machine. Build it, they will come.[/quote] Winning a game in the NCAA tournament is far from the gold standard. But for us long suffering fans it seems like it. I can’t even remember the last time we won a game, it’s been far to long.[/quote]

Sweet sixteen game that put us in Elite 8 with Artest vs. Ohio State?
 
I expect similar results from CMA as we got from Lavin in his time here, with a whole lot less off the court problems and with kids who are easy to root for. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I got more enjoyment out of last season's team then any since Lavin's first team.
 
The importance of 3 point shooting is critical to any Team’s success . We have not had the Designated Shooter in our line up for far too long . I’m not talking about front line players who can shoot the 3 but , more like a spark plug off the Bench who can light it up as soon as he comes into the game . It may take the kind of Player that Anderson might not normally recruit . A player who might be a tad slow or not suited to Anderson ‘s relentless Defense . Maybe like the kid Mullin recruited , Bryan Trimble . I think that was his name . Not sure . He transferred when Mullin left . Anyway , maybe a player from Europe , like Mussini . Just a thought . Give up a little on Defense but , make it up on the 3 pointers . A Specialist .
 
[quote="Monte" post=396417]I expect similar results from CMA as we got from Lavin in his time here, with a whole lot less off the court problems and with kids who are easy to root for. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I got more enjoyment out of last season's team then any since Lavin's first team.[/quote]

Even before he got here I thought Lavin UCLA teams always seemed to be less than the sum of their parts. Some of it was injuries but some of it seemed to be over reliance on talent rather than grinding it out when cold. Defense matters.
 
[quote="fuchsia" post=396419][quote="Monte" post=396417]I expect similar results from CMA as we got from Lavin in his time here, with a whole lot less off the court problems and with kids who are easy to root for. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I got more enjoyment out of last season's team then any since Lavin's first team.[/quote]

Even before he got here I thought Lavin UCLA teams always seemed to be less than the sum of their parts. Some of it was injuries but some of it seemed to be over reliance on talent rather than grinding it out when cold. Defense matters.[/quote]

Some of the posters on here may remember my feelings about the Lavin hire when it happened. I was very skeptical to say the least, based on a lot of what I heard about him(from an insider) during his time at UCLA. Regardless, I supported him 100%, and was encouraged after his early success on the court and with recruiting. Still, I had apprehensions. I have none of those apprehensions about CMA, based on everything we've heard about him and based on what we've seen so far.
 
[quote="Monte" post=396421][quote="fuchsia" post=396419][quote="Monte" post=396417]I expect similar results from CMA as we got from Lavin in his time here, with a whole lot less off the court problems and with kids who are easy to root for. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I got more enjoyment out of last season's team then any since Lavin's first team.[/quote]

Even before he got here I thought Lavin UCLA teams always seemed to be less than the sum of their parts. Some of it was injuries but some of it seemed to be over reliance on talent rather than grinding it out when cold. Defense matters.[/quote]

Some of the posters on here may remember my feelings about the Lavin hire when it happened. I was very skeptical to say the least, based on a lot of what I heard about him(from an insider) during his time at UCLA. Regardless, I supported him 100%, and was encouraged after his early success on the court and with recruiting. Still, I had apprehensions. I have none of those apprehensions about CMA, based on everything we've heard about him and based on what we've seen so far.[/quote]

Thank God for Covid. No one is questioning where he eats (at home likely), how much time he spends out of NY (at home in NY likely), how often he is on campus (no one is on campus), how often he goes to recruiting events (there are none). We can say however, he is a sharp dresser, who wouldn't want to sit on a table.

All in jest
 
[quote="SLYFOXX1968" post=396418]The importance of 3 point shooting is critical to any Team’s success . We have not had the Designated Shooter in our line up for far too long . I’m not talking about front line players who can shoot the 3 but , more like a spark plug off the Bench who can light it up as soon as he comes into the game . It may take the kind of Player that Anderson might not normally recruit . A player who might be a tad slow or not suited to Anderson ‘s relentless Defense . Maybe like the kid Mullin recruited , Bryan Trimble . I think that was his name . Not sure . He transferred when Mullin left . Anyway , maybe a player from Europe , like Mussini . Just a thought . Give up a little on Defense but , make it up on the 3 pointers . A Specialist .[/quote]

Confusing.
We haven't had a 3 point shooter in our lineup in a long time. Then you say we just need a guy off the bench. Then you list 2 players from the last 5 years :S

Mussini career 38%
Trimble (not the answer) 32%
Heron 39%
LJ 38% and 36% his two years
Marvin Clark was over 40% one year
Simon was 38% one year
Even Lovett was 39-40% both years
Ron Mouvika was 38%
Phil Greene was at 40% his last 2 years
Harrison finished 42%

Thats all within the last 5-6 years. I'm sure Making Plays and the ARK folks can chime in on 3 point shooters that Arkansas had. Looking at CMA's last year there he had a 46, 41 and 36 shooters.

You want a specialist? Like Max Hooper? Marco Bourgault? We tried that. Failed experiments for the most part.

No question 3 point shooting is vital. But these aren't the Norm years when nobody could throw the ball in the ocean. We have had some of our better shooting teams in many years under Lav and Mullin.
 
Last edited:
Not sure whether these stats help or hurt Moose's argument, but either way I think the issue is that the perception of our 3 point success or lack thereof is by comparison to Nova and Duke who we see regularly and who each shoot a ton of 3s.

[attachment=1573]SJU 3Pt.png[/attachment]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top