Next Coach?

How about D. Hurley in terms of X/Os ? Vaccaro likes him and talks about "building a program" in contrast to Lavin talking about it. You could also use the Bo Ryan article as a plumline / benchmark.
 
Yeah, except Bo Ryan was a head coach for 17 years before getting the Wisconsin job. Kind of like 2 I guess.
 
Yeah, except Bo Ryan was a head coach for 17 years before getting the Wisconsin job. Kind of like 2 I guess.
Click to expand...

I think Danny has about a dozen years at various levels.

Legit point WRT Bobby.

Chris of course has none.
 
Yeah, except Bo Ryan was a head coach for 17 years before getting the Wisconsin job. Kind of like 2 I guess.
Click to expand...

I think Danny has about a dozen years at various levels.

Legit point WRT Bobby.

Chris of course has none.
Click to expand...

Yes I know. I can see making a case for Danny for some reasons and Chris for others. None of the other candidates being discussed here really would merit discussion from a big time program.
 
Actually, I'd prefer Mullin over the Hurleys at this juncture. I'm not sure about either Mullin or the Hurleys, but there is a calmness and coolness about Mullin that I like.

Beast and MCN (on the other board) covered it well when it comes to Mullen, errrr, Mullin. Not to mention, I'd be all in for the potential staff he'd bring along. Give Mullin a decent tactician to aide him along, then I think we may be a good to go.

As, far as X's and O's.... It's important. But many times it's overrated, and generally folks on here (and, on most message boards) spout it off to make it seem they have an idea what they're talking about. There aren't many, masterful tactician's. There are far, more average X's and O's coaches, than they are good or masterful. Generally, it's all about the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

Does any of you watch UNC play? I watch 'em play often. Roy Williams is about as average as they can get when it comes to X's and O's. Yeah.... Let's go zone when Wisconsin is rallying and have all the momentum, and Kaminsky precisely knocks down a trey to tie the game. The rest of it is history. This is just one example.

You know what usually separate Roy Williams? He generally has a ton of 5-star and McDonald's AA's at his disposal, along with a competent PG, a couple of knockdown shooters, and an inside presence. To his credit, he brought in those players and had to coach 'em. But he's not what you would consider to be an X's and O's guy.

If you've noticed, when he has won championships, it's been with an extremely, experienced team that was loaded with kids who were rated #1 or #2 at their respective positions' when they came out of HS. Kids who were juniors and seniors.

A competent X's and O's will do. Not a poor one. But average-to-above average will do, as long as you have the Jimmy's and Joe's.

I know I've rambled a bit and gotten a bit off topic, but I'd rather have Mullin at this point, IF the staff being mentioned is the one he brings along with him.

**My opinion is subject to change, based on any, new info that pops up**
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I don't agree. there may be few tacticians, but the coaches still playing now in the elite 8 are all brilliant tacticians except for maybe Cal.

The idea that Roy Williams isn't a great X and O guy, but won when he had the top high school players is exactly the point. Recruiting the best players in the country has not been what St. John's has done since Mullin and Berry. And it's not likely to happen going forward, so we need a coaching staff who can develop 3 and 4 star players, teach the game and recruit the occasional 5 star player.
Click to expand...

Agree with Dink that Williams is not a great tactician(have always felt that way), and agree with your recruiting philosophy. There's only a handful of teams who continuously restock their roster with 4 and 5 star talent. I think its unreasonable for us to expect our next coach to be able to do that, nor do I think its necessary in order for us to achieve sustained success. The programs run by Bo Ryan, Mark Few, etc are what we should model ourselves after IMO
Click to expand...

I still believe St. John's, with the right person at the helm, can attract 4 and 5-star kids. Can they do it on the same level, as a Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UNC, and the likes? Nah.... But I think they are capable of doing it. Lavin showed it can be done.

There's only been one team to win an NCAA championship without a McDonald's AA (2000-2001 Maryland Terrapins), and they were not only extremely experienced, but there was a few 4 and 5-star players (ie, Byron Mouton, Lonny Baxter, Steve Blake, Chris Wilcox, Tahj Holden) on their roster.

I don't believe we're gonna ever to be consistently stockpile our team with 4 and 5-star types, but there are occasions where it can be done. Give me a mixture of those types, along with a handful of 3-star kids, and that'll suit me.
Click to expand...

4 + 5 star recruits help win championships, 3 star +/- recruits bring stability. Agree that some of both would be ideal.
 
Actually, I'd prefer Mullin over the Hurleys at this juncture. I'm not sure about either Mullin or the Hurleys, but there is a calmness and coolness about Mullin that I like.

Beast and MCN (on the other board) covered it well when it comes to Mullen, errrr, Mullin. Not to mention, I'd be all in for the potential staff he'd bring along. Give Mullin a decent tactician to aide him along, then I think we may be a good to go.

As, far as X's and O's.... It's important. But many times it's overrated, and generally folks on here (and, on most message boards) spout it off to make it seem they have an idea what they're talking about. There aren't many, masterful tactician's. There are far, more average X's and O's coaches, than they are good or masterful. Generally, it's all about the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

Does any of you watch UNC play? I watch 'em play often. Roy Williams is about as average as they can get when it comes to X's and O's. Yeah.... Let's go zone when Wisconsin is rallying and have all the momentum, and Kaminsky precisely knocks down a trey to tie the game. The rest of it is history. This is just one example.

You know what usually separate Roy Williams? He generally has a ton of 5-star and McDonald's AA's at his disposal, along with a competent PG, a couple of knockdown shooters, and an inside presence. To his credit, he brought in those players and had to coach 'em. But he's not what you would consider to be an X's and O's guy.

If you've noticed, when he has won championships, it's been with an extremely, experienced team that was loaded with kids who were rated #1 or #2 at their respective positions' when they came out of HS. Kids who were juniors and seniors.

A competent X's and O's will do. Not a poor one. But average-to-above average will do, as long as you have the Jimmy's and Joe's.

I know I've rambled a bit and gotten a bit off topic, but I'd rather have Mullin at this point, IF the staff being mentioned is the one he brings along with him.

**My opinion is subject to change, based on any, new info that pops up**
Click to expand...

Good post, which I agree with - to a point.

Your preference for a more "laid back" coach isn't surprising given your affection for Lavin. That isn't a factor for me, because I've seen both styles succeed, as have you.

I don't think it's a case of X and O vs Jimmy and Joe. They both matter.

Lavin got to a certain point with the Jimmys and Joe's and just about no X and O. There are lots of coaches who can get to the same place with good X and O and lesser Jimmy and Joe.

My personal preference is to get there by by the latter route, not the former. To me, better basketball is more fun to watch. If all you care about is the result,or you would rather watch superior athletes and less structure, I can't argue that. It's just a matter of taste.

I will say that I think structural provides a better basis for long term success.

However to get to the top, you usually need both. Kentucky, Kansas, and North Carolina have gotten there with superior athletes and mediocre tactics. But so have programs with athletes a notch below and superior coaching. Try Michigan State or Wisconsin.

Mullin might be great. I certainly wouldn't bet against him. Danny Hurley has the longest track record of coaching success. And Bobby Hurley has exceptional recent success, a big name, and cachet.

While all are options, I think Danny is clearly the safest choice, while Chis is the riskiest.

YMMV
Click to expand...

Appreciate it.

Contrary to what some believe, I think the word "affection" to a coach isn't who I am. I'm never tied to any coach or player. I'm tied to the team whom I root for. I'm not gonna turn this thread into a Lavin session, but I'm not one who thought it was as bad, as some folks made it out to be. There were missteps and there were positives.

Better basketball is more fun. It's even better than that when you're winning. Actually, I just wanna get "there," regardless how it looks. If I was a Virginia fan, then I'd be tad peeved. Frankly, 'til they upgrade their overall talent level, then I see 'em being a good, regular season team, only to flounder in the tournament. Personally, I'm not a fan of their style of play. But if I was a Virginia fan, and they were going to Final Four's and winning championships, then I wouldn't give fat frog's ass how they looked doing it. It's still too early to know how Bennett's teams will translate in the long run. But I have a feeling he'll continue to meet the same demise 'til something changes.

Contrary to what you may believe (again), Izzo brings in solid talent at Michigan State. Granted, this season he has more top 100-150 kids on his roster, but he does have a McDonald's AA (Branden Dawson) and a top 75 kid (Denzel Valentine) on the team, as well. He's the best in the biz, IMO, as he always has his team ready to go. He generally adapts to team personnel, and his team's are usually tough, play discipline, and solid defense. His teams also turns it on in the tournament. I've been watching college basketball for 35 years, and Izzo and Coach K are the best tournament coaches (two of the best coaches ever, period) I've ever seen.

By the way, there is a saying that goes, "Still waters run deep." Remember that in my reference to Mullin's seemingly calm and cool demeanor.
 
Actually, I'd prefer Mullin over the Hurleys at this juncture. I'm not sure about either Mullin or the Hurleys, but there is a calmness and coolness about Mullin that I like.

Beast and MCN (on the other board) covered it well when it comes to Mullen, errrr, Mullin. Not to mention, I'd be all in for the potential staff he'd bring along. Give Mullin a decent tactician to aide him along, then I think we may be a good to go.

As, far as X's and O's.... It's important. But many times it's overrated, and generally folks on here (and, on most message boards) spout it off to make it seem they have an idea what they're talking about. There aren't many, masterful tactician's. There are far, more average X's and O's coaches, than they are good or masterful. Generally, it's all about the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

Does any of you watch UNC play? I watch 'em play often. Roy Williams is about as average as they can get when it comes to X's and O's. Yeah.... Let's go zone when Wisconsin is rallying and have all the momentum, and Kaminsky precisely knocks down a trey to tie the game. The rest of it is history. This is just one example.

You know what usually separate Roy Williams? He generally has a ton of 5-star and McDonald's AA's at his disposal, along with a competent PG, a couple of knockdown shooters, and an inside presence. To his credit, he brought in those players and had to coach 'em. But he's not what you would consider to be an X's and O's guy.

If you've noticed, when he has won championships, it's been with an extremely, experienced team that was loaded with kids who were rated #1 or #2 at their respective positions' when they came out of HS. Kids who were juniors and seniors.

A competent X's and O's will do. Not a poor one. But average-to-above average will do, as long as you have the Jimmy's and Joe's.

I know I've rambled a bit and gotten a bit off topic, but I'd rather have Mullin at this point, IF the staff being mentioned is the one he brings along with him.

**My opinion is subject to change, based on any, new info that pops up**
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I don't agree. there may be few tacticians, but the coaches still playing now in the elite 8 are all brilliant tacticians except for maybe Cal.

The idea that Roy Williams isn't a great X and O guy, but won when he had the top high school players is exactly the point. Recruiting the best players in the country has not been what St. John's has done since Mullin and Berry. And it's not likely to happen going forward, so we need a coaching staff who can develop 3 and 4 star players, teach the game and recruit the occasional 5 star player.
Click to expand...

Agree with Dink that Williams is not a great tactician(have always felt that way), and agree with your recruiting philosophy. There's only a handful of teams who continuously restock their roster with 4 and 5 star talent. I think its unreasonable for us to expect our next coach to be able to do that, nor do I think its necessary in order for us to achieve sustained success. The programs run by Bo Ryan, Mark Few, etc are what we should model ourselves after IMO
Click to expand...

I still believe St. John's, with the right person at the helm, can attract 4 and 5-star kids. Can they do it on the same level, as a Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UNC, and the likes? Nah.... But I think they are capable of doing it. Lavin showed it can be done.

There's only been one team to win an NCAA championship without a McDonald's AA (2000-2001 Maryland Terrapins), and they were not only extremely experienced, but there was a few 4 and 5-star players (ie, Byron Mouton, Lonny Baxter, Steve Blake, Chris Wilcox, Tahj Holden) on their roster.

I don't believe we're gonna ever to be consistently stockpile our team with 4 and 5-star types, but there are occasions where it can be done. Give me a mixture of those types, along with a handful of 3-star kids, and that'll suit me.
Click to expand...

But as per your previous post, if we do that then we better have an outstanding tactician, no?
Click to expand...

I said, a "decent" tactician.
 
Just way too much at stake with Mullin. We're at a critical point in our program right now, future success is not a guarantee. Imagine the worst case scenario if he fails big time and leaves the team in shambles? Then not only will our program be in serious trouble, but our greatest player's legacy will be tarnished.
 
So per Zags little Pitino is letting it be known he's not interested. Hope these other "candidates" at least have an interest.
Click to expand...

Why so testy & negative?
Click to expand...

Negative perhaps, but testy?

I'm far from the only one who is not being positive about this move.

How's this for positive thinking? Perhaps little Pitino is not interested because he knows that the real Pitino is taking this job and he can take the Louisville job.

I just spoke to our buddy Ralph. He's in the same camp with me on this one. We're not sure if any of these guys being mentioned can do any better. Of course, we'll support the chosen one and be at just about every game.
 
Please, please, no Masiello. Have we not had enough drama? Stay away from the hot head who lied about his college degree.

Regarding Mullin, he is my all-time favorite basketball player. I am simply not capable of saying anything negative about him. That said, how do any of us know he can coach? It is a completely different skill and, for all we know, he could be terrible at it. Do we really want to take that risk now? Not only would it be an awful time to fail, but we would then have to fire the program's greatest legend.

So, for me, no Mullin.
Click to expand...

When exactly is it not an "awful time to fail".

If you didn't want to fail then you wouldn't have wanted Lavin gone because he certainly didn't fail. Since that has unfortunately happened, I don't see any problem taking a "risk" on Mullin. His legendary status can help infuse excitement into the program and get top players who would want to play for an NBA star and Olympian. He has the certain charisma that many great leaders and coaches have. He certainly knows the game of basketball as one of the smartest players I have ever watched.

Nothing is a definite in life but scared money don't make money. Hire Mullin!
 
What if everything about Chris was the same, but he graduated from a different school. Would he even be in the discussion as a candidate? Great player, great background, no coaching experience. We just lost a coach that in 5 years (4 actually) took us to the NIT twice, and NCAA twice, Do we really want to replace him with someone who has never coached?
 
I feel like some on here aren't willing to accept that it will be 2-3 years before we are competitive again. I don't mind it, we are rebuilding. I am fine with Danny or Mullin to come in and rebuild the program
Click to expand...

I sure hope not. That's exactly the problem. We were just starting to get competitive again and now we are planning to start over again? If so then there needs to be a clear upgrade otherwise we are just going cheap and are destined to continue being mediocre at best.

The right move was a 3 year extension. If things didn't work out the next 2 years (no tourney) you Fire the guy and eat the 2 years/buyout. Believe me the Hurkeys, Mas, Cluess types would still be there then. That's not how we operate though. We are going cheap. Look at the coaches in the sweet 16 and tell me how many of those guys are "cheap" options?

Listen I hope Danny Hurley or whoever we get is great. I will support the next coach 100% and long after most have abandoned ship. However if we are changing coaches to save money and start another 2-3 year rebuilding effort its a huge mistake. We may not have any fans left in 2-3 years. The Big East and MSG could kick us out!
 
So per Zags little Pitino is letting it be known he's not interested. Hope these other "candidates" at least have an interest.
Click to expand...

Why so testy & negative?
Click to expand...

Negative perhaps, but testy?

I'm far from the only one who is not being positive about this move.

How's this for positive thinking? Perhaps little Pitino is not interested because he knows that the real Pitino is taking this job and he can take the Louisville job.

I just spoke to our buddy Ralph. He's in the same camp with me on this one. We're not sure if any of these guys being mentioned can do any better. Of course, we'll support the chosen one and be at just about every game.
Click to expand...
Thx for scoop on Pitino. :)
 
What if everything about Chris was the same, but he graduated from a different school. Would he even be in the discussion as a candidate? Great player, great background, no coaching experience. We just lost a coach that in 5 years (4 actually) took us to the NIT twice, and NCAA twice, Do we really want to replace him with someone who has never coached?
Click to expand...

I agree. I think they should rehire Lavin. Then our President can say he is emulating George Steinbrenner
 
http://www.bigeastcoastbias.com/2015/3/28/8305729/coaching-rumors-butler-depaul-st-johns

mutual interest between Mas and SJU
Click to expand...

Sounds like Sampson might still come depending and Rysheed and CO might stay also depending on who the hire is. I heard Coach Mas on the Michael Kay show and I was impressed with him. He reminds me of a young PJ Carlisimo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top