Mike Anderson - Recruiting, Coaching, Etc.

Not really fair to say...CMA has a much longer career. Hurley is still a relatively new head coach...especially at a major level. I think Hurley will always outrecruit CMA, but CMA may have the edge developing. I really hope he is our answer to becoming what PC became.
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=398649][quote="Mean Gene" post=398644][quote="Mike Zaun" post=398626]Hurley is primed for a breakout year with ASU and he's already vastly improved their program. They just had a 1st round pick in the NBA. Ranked 7th nationally recruiting for 2020 including a 5*. They just went 20-11 (11-7), 22-10 the year before (NCAA year), 20-11 year before that. (NCAA year) so 3 straight years of 20+ wins and 2 tournaments, would be 3 most likely if last year's tourney happened. They finished 3rd each of the last 3 yrs. We haven't finished better than like 7th or 8th in a long time. And this is not beating a dead horse...someone argued that CMA is better than Hurley when there's no evidence of that if we're talking CMA at SJ so far vs. Hurley at ASU so far. Just being fair.[/quote]

Mike, does Bobby Hurley have 18 winning seasons in a row? Not even close. In fact his first two seasons at ASU we’re losing seasons in a weak PAC 12 stretch. CMA came here and had a winning season right away when no one expected him too. If you want to be fair , you have to acknowledge that.[/quote]

Sure, Hurley doesn't have that and CMA does. It's a feather in the cap of CMA. However, we should be careful IMO reading too much into the over .500 thing. No casual college hoops fan considers barely over .500 a good season and certainly no pundits except maybe in a rebuilding year like we had last yr. But it's worth mentioning that at this level, you're supposed to take care of business in non con and get around 10 wins. Then all you have to do is win a handful or so of games in conference like we did to be over .500 overall. Our conference records have killed us recently. So while it was a good bar to set for CMA his first year and he cleared it, it will not be acceptable for much longer to simply be over .500 overall regardless of conf play record. Hurley has had good conference records. You need both a good conference record and overall record to make the tourney. 16-17 wins are solid for our situation last year, however it's not considered good by any respected pundit in a regular year. Would not consider it a success if all CMA did was have years like last yr. We need a big improvement in conference play.[/quote]

I think you’re wrong about the .500 thing. It’s a marker of great consistency over time and he’s in rare company. It doesn’t matter what the average college basketball fan thinks about it. The guy is a consistent winner at several schools. He might have even gotten further depending on the particular school/scenario and as we know he was let got at Arkansas. He’s also played in 18 NCAA tourney games and has a .500 record in the dance. Argue away whether that’s good enough, but he’s proven he’s a very good and consistent winner with a winning percentage overall of .645. He’s got plenty of basketball coaching to do and does things the “right” way. That may shave some off his ceiling but I believe we will compete every year and I get talent to consistently win big games. Hopefully the scales tilt our way and we build some recognition in nyc and continue to increase our talent level.
 
One thing that’s encouraging is seeing the improvement the team made from the beginning of last season to the end. We played well down the stretch.
 
My question to you though would be: if we win 16-18 games most years but do poorly in conference play, is that successful? The point is, it's a great bar for year 1 and we will def take it. But he needs to not just win 16-18 he needs 20+ consistently. And he needs to vastly improve our conference record. We will need to have years of .500 at worst in conference and likely above to make tourneys. 20 wins for us seems so rare...but all it really requires is a good non con performance and a solid Big East record. If CMA is half the coach many on here claim, he should easily win us 20+ consistently and make consistent tourneys. Hope they're right.
 
One way we can help offset poor shooting is getting consistent penetration by Dunn and Posh. If they can get to the hoop consistently, they can kick out every once in a while for hopefully a wide open 3. Establish the inside game to get the outside going. We may not have any legit shooters other than Cole while guarded, however wide open 3's are much easier to make than contested ones.
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=398691]One way we can help offset poor shooting is getting consistent penetration by Dunn and Posh. If they can get to the hoop consistently, they can kick out every once in a while for hopefully a wide open 3. Establish the inside game to get the outside going. We may not have any legit shooters other than Cole while guarded, however wide open 3's are much easier to make than contested ones.[/quote]

We know that Dunn can penetrate almost at will. He did it all season. Posh is great at getting to the basket as well. I’m more concerned about production from the 2/3 spots. I’d love to see Greg Williams become more of an offensive force this year and hope Cole can fill that scoring wing role. Also be nice to see Champs start where he left off and pick up his consistency on offense. It will help that we have guys like Toro and Moore to score a bit under the basket as we haven’t had much of that recently. We are quite deep overall as a team so I think we will cause even more fits than last year for teams to contend with. Our quality depth is even better.
 
If Williams can have just a little bit more of a scorer's mentality that would go a long way. I like the way he was shooting the ball towards the end of last year. He has a nice stroke when his feet are set and he has time.He needs room because he has a slow motion but he's a good judge of when to take it and doesn't rush himself or chuck up prayers. Would love to see him take his man one on one more.

I know LJ was a big offensive threat but his efficiency took a huge nosedive from his first season. He usually took loooong 3's or drove in to take off balance floaters both of which felt out of rhythm with the rest of the offense. I think our offense will look better this season. I really do. I think where losing LJ REALLY kills us is on defense. He stole and deflected so many passes. He was just long and annoying to deal with and it led to alot of run outs and easy buckets. So we'll have to step up there but I'm very interested in seeing how this team does without a clear #1.
 
[quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=398695]People really would rather have CMA over Bobby Hurley lololol? Homerism at it's finest.[/quote]

Homerism? Hurley is only 10 years younger than CMA and has 248 wins less than CMA as well as a significantly lower winning percentage. Hurley also has 3 NCAA tourney appearances compared to CMA’s 18 and hasn’t made it past the first round, once not making it past the first 4. Maybe you’re extrapolating out what you think he’s gonna do, but he’s done little of substance coaching-wise thus far. He’s built a good team this year. Not saying he’s not going to do nice things but he’s not some 28 year old rising star. His coaching record can’t hold Mike Anderson’s jock at this point, even in what’s been a weak PAC-12. Hurley’s appeal is mostly grounded in projected success and upside at this point. He’s got a ways to go to show he can win consistently and advance.
 
Last edited:
[quote="MCNPA" post=398697][quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=398695]People really would rather have CMA over Bobby Hurley lololol? Homerism at it's finest.[/quote]

Homerism? Hurley is only 10 years younger than CMA and has 248 wins less than CMA as well as a significantly lower winning percentage. Hurley also has 3 NCAA tourney appearances compared to CMA’s 18 and hasn’t made it past the first round, once not making it past the first 4. Maybe you’re extrapolating out what you think he’s gonna do, but he’s done little of substance coaching-wise thus far. He’s built a good team this year. Not saying he’s not going to do nice things but he’s not some 28 year old rising star. His coaching record can’t hold Mike Anderson’s jock at this point, even in what’s been a weak PAC-12. Hurley’s appeal is mostly grounded in projected success and upside at this point. He’s got a ways to go to show he can win consistently and advance.[/quote]

Marcus that is a flawed argument. You can’t compare a longer body of work to a short body of work. Hurley is off to a fine start in his career and has a top 15 team at the moment. You can come back in 10 years and then compare their first 15 or so years of coaching, but until then the absolute number of wins and NCAA appearances is apples and oranges.
 
[quote="gman" post=398700][quote="MCNPA" post=398697][quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=398695]People really would rather have CMA over Bobby Hurley lololol? Homerism at it's finest.[/quote]

Homerism? Hurley is only 10 years younger than CMA and has 248 wins less than CMA as well as a significantly lower winning percentage. Hurley also has 3 NCAA tourney appearances compared to CMA’s 18 and hasn’t made it past the first round, once not making it past the first 4. Maybe you’re extrapolating out what you think he’s gonna do, but he’s done little of substance coaching-wise thus far. He’s built a good team this year. Not saying he’s not going to do nice things but he’s not some 28 year old rising star. His coaching record can’t hold Mike Anderson’s jock at this point, even in what’s been a weak PAC-12. Hurley’s appeal is mostly grounded in projected success and upside at this point. He’s got a ways to go to show he can win consistently and advance.[/quote]

Marcus that is a flawed argument. You can’t compare a longer body of work to a short body of work. Hurley is off to a fine start in his career and has a top 15 team at the moment. You can come back in 10 years and then compare their first 15 or so years of coaching, but until then the absolute number of wins and NCAA appearances is apples and oranges.[/quote]

I don’t think it is apples to oranges and you pretty much support my point. Both are D1 head coaches, both were candidates for this job, and it was in response to Pharm’s post on who you’d rather have. i didn’t think CMA was a laughable choice in that comparison. Not saying Hurley has done a bad job. Certainly they’re at different point in their careers but they’re both doing the same job so they can be compared in the context of the sju job. My only point, was to illustrate that Bobby Hurley hasn’t done a whole lot just yet.

PS Top 15 preseason means nothing fwiw.
 
[quote="MCNPA" post=398701][quote="gman" post=398700][quote="MCNPA" post=398697][quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=398695]People really would rather have CMA over Bobby Hurley lololol? Homerism at it's finest.[/quote]

Homerism? Hurley is only 10 years younger than CMA and has 248 wins less than CMA as well as a significantly lower winning percentage. Hurley also has 3 NCAA tourney appearances compared to CMA’s 18 and hasn’t made it past the first round, once not making it past the first 4. Maybe you’re extrapolating out what you think he’s gonna do, but he’s done little of substance coaching-wise thus far. He’s built a good team this year. Not saying he’s not going to do nice things but he’s not some 28 year old rising star. His coaching record can’t hold Mike Anderson’s jock at this point, even in what’s been a weak PAC-12. Hurley’s appeal is mostly grounded in projected success and upside at this point. He’s got a ways to go to show he can win consistently and advance.[/quote]

Marcus that is a flawed argument. You can’t compare a longer body of work to a short body of work. Hurley is off to a fine start in his career and has a top 15 team at the moment. You can come back in 10 years and then compare their first 15 or so years of coaching, but until then the absolute number of wins and NCAA appearances is apples and oranges.[/quote]

I don’t think it is apples to oranges and you pretty much support my point. Both are D1 head coaches, both were candidates for this job, and it was in response to Pharm’s post on who you’d rather have. i didn’t think CMA was a laughable choice in that comparison. Not saying Hurley has done a bad job. Certainly they’re at different point in their careers but they’re both doing the same job so they can be compared in the context of the sju job. My only point, was to illustrate that Bobby Hurley hasn’t done a whole lot just yet.

PS Top 15 preseason means nothing fwiw.[/quote]

I like CMA but you wouldn’t have passed on Hurley for him. They are in similar trajectories at the same time point in their career and Hurley has e potential to have his versions of CMAs 2008-2009 this year.
 
Last edited:
I'll say one thing, and I'm pretty outspoken on social issues dividing our nation:

I completely endorse CMA's efforts to make his kids socially aware, to be a teacher and mentor in the truest sense.

They have brought in speakers on different social issues, emphasized the importance of the vote, encouraged but not forced kids to register.

I think in these times, considering everything going on, we can do no better than CMA. His leadership of these young men has been exemplary, and goes far beyond basketball.

There is also a deep and mutual respect between CMA and MC, and they are extremely confident that they know how to build a championship caliber team and that's the clear cut goal.
 
Hurley is just getting into his prime right now with a top 25 team, #7 recruiting class (not some early ranking that won't stand...it's for 2020 so it's basically over...legit 7th in nation), landed a 5*, finished 3rd each of the last 3 yrs in a major conference, and I believe 3 straight NCAA appearances. He also won at least 1 game in the tourney. By our standards, that would be the best we've had in about 20 yrs. Lavin recruited well for us, but he didn't get the teams to do anything in March. We were also never preseason top 25 I believe like ASU and Hurley are. Look, you can simultaneously be hopeful for CMA while also being honest. I would take Pitino and both Hurleys over him...also probably Oates and Mussleman who have both been better than CMA already in their 1st season or so. After that, then yes I think CMA was the best available for us. He will have plenty of opportunities to show he was a better hire than most if not all of those bigger name coaches and we all hope it happens obviously. I've just never been a fan of blatantly lying just because I'm a fan of one team over another. IMO it makes our fanbase look silly.
 
Last edited:
100% I would have taken Hurley. Never said I wouldn’t. I think cma is a better coach, Hurley and staff better recruiters. Cma also needs more time to see how he can raise the talent level here, because Hurley took time as well.. My only point was that Hurley still has a lot to prove and he isn’t all that young either like Oates and some of the other guys out there.
 
[quote="MCNPA" post=398708]100% I would have taken Hurley. Never said I wouldn’t. I think cma is a better coach, Hurley and staff better recruiters. Cma also needs more time to see how he can raise the talent level here, because Hurley took time as well.. My only point was that Hurley still has a lot to prove and he isn’t all that young either like Oates and some of the other guys out there.[/quote]

I think there's some merit to both views here. Anderson has coached successfully and won for a lot longer and at a much higher conference level than Hurley. The PAC-12 has basically been trash since Hurley took the ASU job, but he's gotten them to the top quarter of the league the last couple of years, he's a very good recruiter and a very capable game coach (other than the ridiculous T's he gets).

It's a question of whether you prefer proven performance or a good bet on potential. Wouldn't surprise me if 15 years from now Hurley's resume looks similar to Anderson.

If you told me I could hire either of them at the time, I would probably have gone with Anderson, but there would have been arguments to make for either candidate.
 
IMHO Dunn's development need coming into this season was to have another couple of tools in his tool kit other than "drive to the basket and score or get fouled." He needs to develop confidence in shooting with his feet set (which he HATES to do, he's a playground player and is only happy when he's on the move) and he needs to add the "kick" element to "drive and kick" - I can't remember seeing him penetrate and dish to the corner once all year last year.

As discussed on the starting lineup thread, this team has great depth, much better size and balance than we've had in basically forever, but needs to find scoring options. I think it's going to be a group effort. Suspect Cole will probably be our most consistent points leader but after that it may very well be a rotating case of Champagnie, Williams, Earlington, and Dunn.

If it works and we can score enough points to go along with what I expect will be a ridiculously disruptive defense now that we are basically 13 deep and Anderson can press and run for 40 minutes, it's an NCAA year. If we can't find enough offense, it will be a bottom-half of the league year - which could still make them a bubble team depending on whether it's the top or the bottom of the bottom half.
 
Not to be crude, but to be fair, one got fired and hired. Another got offered a better job and took it due to his success. You could make the argument that Ark fans set bar too high which has some merit, but the fact is he did not do enough while there to get an extension in their view. The open market clearly chose Hurley. Otherwise, CMA would've been snatched up immediately by a better program than us. Many Ark fans believe he got too comfortable there...which is kind of a boon for us now, because CMA appears very motivated to silence his critics and prove his worth. And we would be the hopeful beneficiary.
 
[quote="lawmanfan" post=398717]IMHO Dunn's development need coming into this season was to have another couple of tools in his tool kit other than "drive to the basket and score or get fouled." He needs to develop confidence in shooting with his feet set (which he HATES to do, he's a playground player and is only happy when he's on the move) and he needs to add the "kick" element to "drive and kick" - I can't remember seeing him penetrate and dish to the corner once all year last year.

As discussed on the starting lineup thread, this team has great depth, much better size and balance than we've had in basically forever, but needs to find scoring options. I think it's going to be a group effort. Suspect Cole will probably be our most consistent points leader but after that it may very well be a rotating case of Champagnie, Williams, Earlington, and Dunn.

If it works and we can score enough points to go along with what I expect will be a ridiculously disruptive defense now that we are basically 13 deep and Anderson can press and run for 40 minutes, it's an NCAA year. If we can't find enough offense, it will be a bottom-half of the league year - which could still make them a bubble team depending on whether it's the top or the bottom of the bottom half.[/quote]

I agree. If Dunn can improve his outside shooting to the point he's a 35% 3 point shooter (constantly knocking down open 3's) he's a weapon and could be among the better PG's in the league at the end of the season.

I love the idea of not having the scoring load carried by one or two guys. The ball keeps moving and we are harder to defend. Just need guys who can execute when given the open shot.

We don't need guys taking bad shots just because they feel like they need to score 20 for us to win. Figgy was a terrific player, but in 45 years following this team, I've never seen a player take so many horrifically bad shots.
 
[quote="SJUFAN2" post=398720][quote="lawmanfan" post=398717]IMHO Dunn's development need coming into this season was to have another couple of tools in his tool kit other than "drive to the basket and score or get fouled." He needs to develop confidence in shooting with his feet set (which he HATES to do, he's a playground player and is only happy when he's on the move) and he needs to add the "kick" element to "drive and kick" - I can't remember seeing him penetrate and dish to the corner once all year last year.

As discussed on the starting lineup thread, this team has great depth, much better size and balance than we've had in basically forever, but needs to find scoring options. I think it's going to be a group effort. Suspect Cole will probably be our most consistent points leader but after that it may very well be a rotating case of Champagnie, Williams, Earlington, and Dunn.

If it works and we can score enough points to go along with what I expect will be a ridiculously disruptive defense now that we are basically 13 deep and Anderson can press and run for 40 minutes, it's an NCAA year. If we can't find enough offense, it will be a bottom-half of the league year - which could still make them a bubble team depending on whether it's the top or the bottom of the bottom half.[/quote]

I agree. If Dunn can improve his outside shooting to the point he's a 35% 3 point shooter (constantly knocking down open 3's) he's a weapon and could be among the better PG's in the league at the end of the season.

I love the idea of not having the scoring load carried by one or two guys. The ball keeps moving and we are harder to defend. Just need guys who can execute when given the open shot.

We don't need guys taking bad shots just because they feel like they need to score 20 for us to win. Figgy was a terrific player, but in 45 years following this team, I've never seen a player take so many horrifically bad shots.[/quote]

Good to put LJ’s 20 foot floaters in rear view mirror. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top