Mike Anderson - Recruiting, Coaching, Etc.
- Thread starter JohnnyFever
- Start date
beast of the east
Active member
I get the humor, but for certain all the beat reporters troll team forums. Some may even chat with posters trying to get inside information from each other.. Especially in this season, when there are no fans present, how could Vacc possibly form an opinion about fans when none are present at games and our student base is almost non existent?lawmanfan" post=425514 said:
Some thoughts on Anderson's coaching:
Pluses: He is able to get his teams to play the way he wants them to play, and they tend to get better over the course of the season. They compete, they do not give up, and while everything is not perfect all the time, they are frequently fun to watch. He is good at using time-outs and halftime adjustments to get the team focused on playing the way he wants if they drift from it during the game and it isn't going well for them. He instills confidence in his players and finds a way to maximize the talent he has on the roster and make up for any shortcomings as best he can.
Minuses: The lack of halfcourt play design to get players an open look when needed. Far too often the play seems to be "get the ball into someone's hands and let them go to work." Lots of teams do that, so it isn't a unique problem, but when you don't have a player like Bouknight on your roster, you don't have a scoring big man, and your point guards are poor shooters, it isn't a great strategy. My assumption is that Anderson is building the system for when he does have the right player for that, but I don't love the lack of flexibility. The same thing goes for the defense - I understand his defensive philosophy, and I have no problem with it, but there are situations that call for trying something else and he is very reluctant to do that.
Overall I think the bottom line is that his coaching is fine. It should consistently put SJU in the top half of the league. And if he can get superior talent, it could go farther. Which brings us to:
Recruiting: I hate to even use the word, but I'll keep it short. I think he's done an outstanding job of bringing in players who he could develop in his system and in getting the most out of them. My expectation remains that when those players are consistently competitive in the league, that plus the attraction of the way he plays will open the door to the next level of recruit.
Having lived through St John's basketball from Louie to date, I am very, very happy to have a professional coach here who should be here for a long time.
Pluses: He is able to get his teams to play the way he wants them to play, and they tend to get better over the course of the season. They compete, they do not give up, and while everything is not perfect all the time, they are frequently fun to watch. He is good at using time-outs and halftime adjustments to get the team focused on playing the way he wants if they drift from it during the game and it isn't going well for them. He instills confidence in his players and finds a way to maximize the talent he has on the roster and make up for any shortcomings as best he can.
Minuses: The lack of halfcourt play design to get players an open look when needed. Far too often the play seems to be "get the ball into someone's hands and let them go to work." Lots of teams do that, so it isn't a unique problem, but when you don't have a player like Bouknight on your roster, you don't have a scoring big man, and your point guards are poor shooters, it isn't a great strategy. My assumption is that Anderson is building the system for when he does have the right player for that, but I don't love the lack of flexibility. The same thing goes for the defense - I understand his defensive philosophy, and I have no problem with it, but there are situations that call for trying something else and he is very reluctant to do that.
Overall I think the bottom line is that his coaching is fine. It should consistently put SJU in the top half of the league. And if he can get superior talent, it could go farther. Which brings us to:
Recruiting: I hate to even use the word, but I'll keep it short. I think he's done an outstanding job of bringing in players who he could develop in his system and in getting the most out of them. My expectation remains that when those players are consistently competitive in the league, that plus the attraction of the way he plays will open the door to the next level of recruit.
Having lived through St John's basketball from Louie to date, I am very, very happy to have a professional coach here who should be here for a long time.
Agree, its all roses when we get the opponent to play at our pace, but that's not always going to happen. It's glaring in each of our games, some we were able to overcome. Will we ever overcome it enough to become more than just a bubble team? We have a great shooter in Cole, but he is neutralized with our style. Great catch and shoot guy, but not so much putting the ball on the floor.lawmanfan" post=425595 said:
I too am pleased we have a guy like CMA, but lack of a half court offense will only take us so far.
A competent big, who presents even a modest threat in the post, would help with half court offense with kick outs when doubled for some open jump shots and passing to cutters. Some high low action involving Julian would be possible as well. With lesser quality post guys too often you are playing four against five on offense imo.espken" post=425599 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
At some point we have to get a top 50-100 type of Player if we want to ever see a Friday night or Saturday night game in which we are in ... And , that should be Goal for the team next year , get to Friday or Saturday night games . And , we need to build the Program to consistently finish ahead of Seton Hall . Hopefully the players coming in will take us to that level . As CMA says ," we don't want to over achieve every year and not get to a BE contender level . I think he knows that too .
Champagnie and Posh were not four star recruits but they are four star players which I think we can all agree on is more important.
usguard wrote:
Your right guess I was considering right out of HS
US, not sure it matters whether right out of HS or as a transfer. More importantly, remember neither Posh nor Alvarado were consensus 4 star recruits out of HS. Both were defensive players of the year in their conference and Alvarado also 2nd team all ACC.
Your right guess I was considering right out of HS
US, not sure it matters whether right out of HS or as a transfer. More importantly, remember neither Posh nor Alvarado were consensus 4 star recruits out of HS. Both were defensive players of the year in their conference and Alvarado also 2nd team all ACC.
Last edited:
Sju2420
posh was a 4 star
Totally agree that Posh was a 4 star talent, but he was not a consensus 4 star recruit by the recruiting sites, which was my point. He was listed as a 4 star by ESPN, 3 star by rivals and 247sports. I used him and Alvarado as examples of how flawed these rankings can be.
posh was a 4 star
Totally agree that Posh was a 4 star talent, but he was not a consensus 4 star recruit by the recruiting sites, which was my point. He was listed as a 4 star by ESPN, 3 star by rivals and 247sports. I used him and Alvarado as examples of how flawed these rankings can be.
L J S A
Well-known member
A good way to view actual current star rating would probably be how many schools would reach out to Posh and Julian if they entered the portal with no rumors of a predetermined destination.
Julian would have 100 schools reach out. That sounds like a 5-star player to me. Doesn't matter if he was 2 or 3 in high school.
Julian would have 100 schools reach out. That sounds like a 5-star player to me. Doesn't matter if he was 2 or 3 in high school.
