Mike Dunleavy for X and O coach .
- Thread starter matt105
- Start date
If Cragg is smart he will insist on Mullin hiring a assistant with x’s and o’ experience and let Richmond go! Since both Richmond and Mullin are very close friends Mullin will resist this and resign. This is how I believe this will end up thus a search for a new coach will in all likelihood begin after this season! The fact is Mullin needs help! I hope it works out for him! But something needs to be done! If not Dunleavy I would love to get Dunlop back as an assistant!
the issue is not x/o. The issue is team building. This team with more size could have been top 5-10 this season. When Mullin first started he made a comment that (paraphrase) 5 small guys will always beat 5 big guys. He's fixated on that thinking and we now know authoritatively plodding through this season with 5 really great players, that it does not translate for college ball. It is too rigid. Small ball fine. But you still need size to complement. Having inside threat makes small guys better. Less pressure more open shots and you can open up the floor. Defensively it takes less physical exertion and execution improves. Having 5'11-6'5 guys guarding large power forwards and centers and athletic 3-5 with height advantage is an almost impossible task to maintain. You can do it for spurts but you need relief and not soft bigs who want to shoot the three and have zero inclination to rebound... If we go through another off season bringing surprising head scratching transfers like Mikey Dixon instead of some size I think I will bust a brain vessel.
[quote="Catman" post=331978]If Cragg is smart he will insist on Mullin hiring a assistant with x’s and o’ experience and let Richmond go! Since both Richmond and Mullin are very close friends Mullin will resist this and resign. This is how I believe this will end up thus a search for a new coach will in all likelihood begin after this season! The fact is Mullin needs help! I hope it works out for him! But something needs to be done! If not Dunleavy I would love to get Dunlop back as an assistant![/quote]
That last part will never happen.
By all accounts, Dunlap hated New York with a passion. Plus, he's had a pretty good year at Loyola Marymount. They will be playing in the CBI.
That last part will never happen.
By all accounts, Dunlap hated New York with a passion. Plus, he's had a pretty good year at Loyola Marymount. They will be playing in the CBI.
[quote="Paul Massell" post=331984]the issue is not x/o. The issue is team building. This team with more size could have been top 5-10 this season. When Mullin first started he made a comment that (paraphrase) 5 small guys will always beat 5 big guys. He's fixated on that thinking and we now know authoritatively plodding through this season with 5 really great players, that it does not translate for college ball. It is too rigid. Small ball fine. But you still need size to complement. Having inside threat makes small guys better. Less pressure more open shots and you can open up the floor. Defensively it takes less physical exertion and execution improves. Having 5'11-6'5 guys guarding large power forwards and centers and athletic 3-5 with height advantage is an almost impossible task to maintain. You can do it for spurts but you need relief and not soft bigs who want to shoot the three and have zero inclination to rebound... If we go through another off season bringing surprising head scratching transfers like Mikey Dixon instead of some size I think I will bust a brain vessel.[/quote]
+1,000
+1,000
[quote="Paul Massell" post=331984]the issue is not x/o. The issue is team building. This team with more size could have been top 5-10 this season. When Mullin first started he made a comment that (paraphrase) 5 small guys will always beat 5 big guys. He's fixated on that thinking and we now know authoritatively plodding through this season with 5 really great players, that it does not translate for college ball. It is too rigid. Small ball fine. But you still need size to complement. Having inside threat makes small guys better. Less pressure more open shots and you can open up the floor. Defensively it takes less physical exertion and execution improves. Having 5'11-6'5 guys guarding large power forwards and centers and athletic 3-5 with height advantage is an almost impossible task to maintain. You can do it for spurts but you need relief and not soft bigs who want to shoot the three and have zero inclination to rebound... If we go through another off season bringing surprising head scratching transfers like Mikey Dixon instead of some size I think I will bust a brain vessel.[/quote]
I agree with you here. The only way that “small ball” works, is if everyone is committed to fundamental rebounding. That means boxing out, with your rear end on an opponent body. See Villanova over the past few years. Their only big guy that played significant minutes was Ochefu. Generally, they played 4 guards. But those guards rebounded like their lives depended on it.
That same commitment is not present here.
I agree with you here. The only way that “small ball” works, is if everyone is committed to fundamental rebounding. That means boxing out, with your rear end on an opponent body. See Villanova over the past few years. Their only big guy that played significant minutes was Ochefu. Generally, they played 4 guards. But those guards rebounded like their lives depended on it.
That same commitment is not present here.
[quote="Paul Massell" post=331984]the issue is not x/o. The issue is team building. This team with more size could have been top 5-10 this season. When Mullin first started he made a comment that (paraphrase) 5 small guys will always beat 5 big guys. He's fixated on that thinking and we now know authoritatively plodding through this season with 5 really great players, that it does not translate for college ball. It is too rigid. Small ball fine. But you still need size to complement. Having inside threat makes small guys better. Less pressure more open shots and you can open up the floor. Defensively it takes less physical exertion and execution improves. Having 5'11-6'5 guys guarding large power forwards and centers and athletic 3-5 with height advantage is an almost impossible task to maintain. You can do it for spurts but you need relief and not soft bigs who want to shoot the three and have zero inclination to rebound... If we go through another off season bringing surprising head scratching transfers like Mikey Dixon instead of some size I think I will bust a brain vessel.[/quote] Now add to your post that we have no bench.
Having size does matter, however when you retreat on defense once a shot is taken you have absolutely zero chance of getting a rebound. It’s like the old baseball adage, “if you don’t take the bat off your shoulder, I can guarantee you’ll never get a hit”.
That is what materially killed us.
That is what materially killed us.
Up to a few years ago college coaches taught players the best shot was the one closest to the basket. The popularity of the three point basket has changed that. Some coaches prefer an open three point shot to any two point shot except the layup and encourage their players to take that open three point shot even with plenty of time on the shot clock without any effort to work the ball in for a better shot.
Mullin appears to coach that way but didn't have the roster for it to work. Four of the starters are decent three point shooters but when Ponds or Heron sat out the bench had only terrible three point shooters after Dixon left. If you coach the open three strategy you have to recruit that way.
Mullin appears to coach that way but didn't have the roster for it to work. Four of the starters are decent three point shooters but when Ponds or Heron sat out the bench had only terrible three point shooters after Dixon left. If you coach the open three strategy you have to recruit that way.
[quote="Paul Massell" post=331984]the issue is not x/o. The issue is team building. This team with more size could have been top 5-10 this season. When Mullin first started he made a comment that (paraphrase) 5 small guys will always beat 5 big guys. He's fixated on that thinking and we now know authoritatively plodding through this season with 5 really great players, that it does not translate for college ball. It is too rigid. Small ball fine. But you still need size to complement. Having inside threat makes small guys better. Less pressure more open shots and you can open up the floor. Defensively it takes less physical exertion and execution improves. Having 5'11-6'5 guys guarding large power forwards and centers and athletic 3-5 with height advantage is an almost impossible task to maintain. You can do it for spurts but you need relief and not soft bigs who want to shoot the three and have zero inclination to rebound... If we go through another off season bringing surprising head scratching transfers like Mikey Dixon instead of some size I think I will bust a brain vessel.[/quote]
Agreed the X's and O's stuff is way overrated. The biggest issue for the last 3 years is recruiting. They are not getting it done with recruiting. The failure to land top recruits and the way over-reliance on transfers is causing serious roster issues. Dunleavy Jr doesn't solve that. There are other coaches who bring both coaching and recruiting experience. And quite frankly they need at least 2 staff changes not just one.
Agreed the X's and O's stuff is way overrated. The biggest issue for the last 3 years is recruiting. They are not getting it done with recruiting. The failure to land top recruits and the way over-reliance on transfers is causing serious roster issues. Dunleavy Jr doesn't solve that. There are other coaches who bring both coaching and recruiting experience. And quite frankly they need at least 2 staff changes not just one.
Ray Morgan
Well-known member
The Big East stats point out what went wrong, and the answer is roster construction and recruiting. Team ended up mid pack in many categories, but what stands out is that we were the conference's worst rebounding team, and by a big margin. Worst offensive rebounding team, and near the bottom in defensive rebounding. A really bad -6.1 rebounding margin. a 4 rebound per game deficiency worse than the next worse rebounding team, Butler.
As for offense, 7th in assists is not good. Only one player (Heron) in the top 15 in 3 point shooting %. Problem is he didn't take that many 3s. Ponds the only player in the top 15 in threes made. Looking at the stats, we were an average 3 point shooting team and a below average passing team. Coupled with the rebounding woes, we did well to go 8 and 10. What saved us was our low assist to turnover ratio, and leading the conference in steals. Mullin did not recruit players to fit his system. I have tired of the transfer system, and I hope Cragg has too. Except for hardship transfers, you may be getting players that have had weaknesses exposed in high major play, or mid major talent that can't step up to high major play. We need a fresh recruiting approach first and foremost. Next, an x and o guy that can teach multiple looks on defense, and demands better ball movement on offense, and a more disciplined approach.
As for offense, 7th in assists is not good. Only one player (Heron) in the top 15 in 3 point shooting %. Problem is he didn't take that many 3s. Ponds the only player in the top 15 in threes made. Looking at the stats, we were an average 3 point shooting team and a below average passing team. Coupled with the rebounding woes, we did well to go 8 and 10. What saved us was our low assist to turnover ratio, and leading the conference in steals. Mullin did not recruit players to fit his system. I have tired of the transfer system, and I hope Cragg has too. Except for hardship transfers, you may be getting players that have had weaknesses exposed in high major play, or mid major talent that can't step up to high major play. We need a fresh recruiting approach first and foremost. Next, an x and o guy that can teach multiple looks on defense, and demands better ball movement on offense, and a more disciplined approach.
Last edited:
beast of the east
Active member
[quote="otis" post=332039]Mr. Dunleavy has lost nearly 75% of the D1 college games he has coached (24–69 being a 25.8% winning percent).[/quote]
So you just add his 26% to the 63% that we won and he will get us to 90%. Duh.
So you just add his 26% to the 63% that we won and he will get us to 90%. Duh.
[quote="Beast of the East" post=332042][quote="otis" post=332039]Mr. Dunleavy has lost nearly 75% of the D1 college games he has coached (24–69 being a 25.8% winning percent).[/quote]
So you just add his 26% to the 63% that we won and he will get us to 90%. Duh.[/quote]
Be careful with this. You are hiring these people to be assistants not to be head coaches, their winning % and stuff like that is less relevant as an assistant. Not the same standard. So many other things go into being a HC. Look around to staffs everywhere, you will see former head coaches who were fired and then hired as assistants by very prominent HC's. If you just looked at these assistants records as HC's you wouldn't hire them. Buzz Williams' top assistant at Marquette was Jerry Wainwright. You want to look up Wainwright's record at DePaul before Buzz hired him? How about Norm's record at SJU before Billy Donovan hired him at Florida for 1 year (before he rejoined his old boss at Kansas Bill Self).
Billy Kennedy and Kevin Ollie were fired for performance as well, meaning they didn't cut it. So they aren't qualified to be assistant coaches? Really?
Standard is experience both in recruiting and coaching, even if their record as a HC was/is not glowing. What can they bring to the table as an assistant? That is the standard.
So you just add his 26% to the 63% that we won and he will get us to 90%. Duh.[/quote]
Be careful with this. You are hiring these people to be assistants not to be head coaches, their winning % and stuff like that is less relevant as an assistant. Not the same standard. So many other things go into being a HC. Look around to staffs everywhere, you will see former head coaches who were fired and then hired as assistants by very prominent HC's. If you just looked at these assistants records as HC's you wouldn't hire them. Buzz Williams' top assistant at Marquette was Jerry Wainwright. You want to look up Wainwright's record at DePaul before Buzz hired him? How about Norm's record at SJU before Billy Donovan hired him at Florida for 1 year (before he rejoined his old boss at Kansas Bill Self).
Billy Kennedy and Kevin Ollie were fired for performance as well, meaning they didn't cut it. So they aren't qualified to be assistant coaches? Really?
Standard is experience both in recruiting and coaching, even if their record as a HC was/is not glowing. What can they bring to the table as an assistant? That is the standard.