tom in salem
Well-known member
AWESOME avatar.
Next Coach?
- Thread starter Knight
- Start date
AWESOME avatar.
beast of the east
Active member
Anyone who is unhappy this morning, call your physician. He can adjust the dose of your medication, or try something new. You don't have to feel this way 
+1,000.
The question isn't whether we win or lose a particular game, or even whether we play well or not in any particular game. The question is whether as a whole we play good basketball and are building an identity as a program.
Whether we get crushed by Duke, or come out with an inspired effort and pull the upset, or (most likely) hang tough for 20 or 30 minutes and then fade won't change the big picture at all.
Avon Barksdale
Member
i agree that beating a Marquette team that is very undermanned and currently rebuilding by three points in our building isnt anything to get excited about.
if anything, it should warn us that if we come out that way we will be embarrassed (which i predict will absolutely happen with the way we have played) and to kick us while we are down Rat Face will celebrate his 1,000th win on our home floor.
the coaching last night was abyssmal again (the back to back time outs at the end, Albibegovich 4 fouls in the first 12 mins of the game, and the overall quality of our play - ie the "offense" we run reflects on the terrible job Lavin has done). We are very lucky we ran into a team undermanned last night because if thats Nova or Duke or GTown or Seton hall or Butler or Xavier we lose by 20 points.
If we play that way at Creighton we lose next week.
If we play that way home vs PC we lose next week.
This team is very very bad at handling the ball and as we saw against DePaul they cant handle pressure defense at all....if a team presses us we are in for a long night.
beast of the east
Active member
Every game circumstance is different. We could have easily lost last night, just as we could have easily won vs. Butler or DePaul or Seton Hall. I'll take winning and not playing optimally, over losing and playing well. Unless there is a D1 college coach here on Redmen.com who knows better, I'd say the strategy yesterday worked because we won. Using Amar to provide meaningful minutes was a good call, and had he been shuffled off the floor in time to avoid foul #4, he'd have been serviceable in the first half.
In terms of Harrison's shooting, I don't think he would make the excuse that he had a sore leg. HE wasn't limping, and certainly while it was wrapped in the second half, to start the game he shot just horribly - something we've seen before from him. I can't say it was his injury, and to assert that it was is just presumptuous with basis and nothing more.
Credit Vince Lombardi:
“Winning is not a sometime thing; it’s an all the time thing. You don’t win once in a while; you don’t do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.
“There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that’s first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay, and I don’t ever want to finish second again. There is a second place bowl game, but it is a game for losers played by losers. It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win.
“Every time a football player goes to play his trade he’s got to play from the ground up – from the soles of his feet right up to his head. Every inch of him has to play. Some guys play with their heads. That’s O.K. You’ve got to be smart to be number one in any business. But more importantly, you’ve got to play with your heart, with every fiber of your body. If you’re lucky enough to find a guy with a lot of head and a lot of heart, he’s never going to come off the field second.
“Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organization – an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win – to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds hard or cruel. I don’t think it is.”
“It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That’s why they are there – to compete. To know the rules and objectives when they get in the game. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules – but to win.”
“And in truth, I’ve never known a man worth his salt who in the long run, deep down in his heart, didn’t appreciate the grind, the discipline. There is something in good men that really yearns for discipline and the harsh reality of head to head combat.”
“I don’t say these things because I believe in the ‘brute’ nature of man or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour – his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear – is that moment when he has to work his heart out in a good cause and he’s exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”
Vince Lombardi
Win is a win. IMO coaches don't win/lose games. But it's comical here, when we win it's the players who win it. When we lose, kill the coach. A coach can only do or not do so much, it should not affect the overall outcome of a game. The overall outcome of the came depends on how many times you put the ball in the bucket and how many times you stop the other team from doing so. This thread is a joke.
Most of the times we have lost this year it has been because our depth or lack thereof has been exposed by a bigger team or a team that just simply had more gas in the tank down the stretch.
That's on Lavin,thus why he is usually blamed after a loss. I agree it gets comical how this thread gets brought up everytime we play bad, but it is understandable why there is frustration with the coach and our lack of depth.
beast of the east
Active member
This is a new variation. Win and kill the coach anyway.
beast of the east
Active member
Jack what would you say if by the end of the year Amar solidifies as a reliable frontcourt option as he completes his freshman maturation process. Let's say JDR finds his role, and can grab 3-4 rebounds and provide reasonable defense in 6-10 minutes per game. Furthermore, let's say Myles Stewart, who has shown signs of life settles into a 9th man role to provide credible minutes when called on or Balamou does the same? Do we still have horrible depth?
You go to most team forums and that team's fans are bitching and moaning about their coach. People like to nitpick and bitch and moan. You can find something to criticize just about any coach if you look hard enough and the ones that are hard to criticize aren't coming to SJU.
Lavin isn't the greatest coach but I don't think he is as bad as everyone makes him out to be.
Lavin isn't the greatest coach but I don't think he is as bad as everyone makes him out to be.
No. But that doesn't change the fact that our losses SO FAR have been because of lack of depth among other things. If our bench comes together and starts playing well, that's awesome, but until then we suffer through games like the nova game and DePaul game and chalk it up to Lavin not getting proper and eligible talent. What if we had two good bigs to come off the bench against nova when Dom fouled out and Chris rolled his ankle? What if we had a capable guard to come in and score when DLo was clearly hurting against DePaul? An argument could be made that this team would be ranked still and easily in the tournament.
beast of the east
Active member
Nice response. Agree 100% in your examples. Just keep in mind that while everyone gave credit to Dunlap as the genius behind the dunce Lavin, it took us a bunch of games in 2011 to settle on a rotation where the team took off. You'd like to hope that it happens sooner in the season, but Amar is after all a freshman, JDR is just newly eligible, and beyond that 9th man is a crap shoot until someone emerges. Agree though if we are going to salvage this season finding an 8th and maybe a 9th man (now that Amar seems to have claimed the 7th man slot) is important.
I don't buy the "Dunlap is a coaching guru" narrative. And I'm also not as hard on Lavin as others, but at the same time I do understand frustrations that come out after losses. Depth has been a problem. Amar has really started to get minutes of late, good sign, hopefully JDR and Myles get minutes too as you mentioned. It would be huge help
Jack, I am a Lavin supporter but I agree with you tha our lack of depth is on him. I have no problem with criticizing Lavin for us being worn down at the end of games. I have a problem with people blaming Lavin for calling a play for his highest ranked recruit to date, because the player didn't finish the play.
I also have a problem with micro-analyzing (?) every play and substitution after a win. People think they know what would have worked better. That's just a bunch of frustrated wannabe coaches trying to sound smart on a message board.
Agreed simply red. The complaints of giving it to Jordan at the end of the DePaul game were ridiculous IMO. How'd we get to OT? Who got an "and one" in OT to help keep us in it? Every thing we got down the stretch in that game was through Jordan. So giving it to him on the last play was basically a no brainer. That's where you gotta ask the critics, who do you go to there? Greene isn't the best at creating his own shot, DLo sat in the corner for the entire 2nd half. He didn't want the ball.
As for people complaining Amar was left in to get a fourth foul, did anyone watching the game catch the shot of obekpa going to bench in the first half when he subbed out? He could've used a oxygen tank. He was spent, and that's also why I think he hasn't had as big an impact last few games, I fear he is worn down. But anyway, CO was exhausted.
The depth to me is something to blame Lavin on, but in terms of quick coaching decisions and in game coaching, I actually think Lavin has been fine this year.
Class of 72
Active member
You are 100% right except the nature of the Beast in most of us fans is to debate, analyze and criticize our teams. Yankees, Mets or Jets it doesn't make a difference and Steve Lavin is not the coach of those teams. As usual, the coaches of the teams get the brunt of the criticism while the poor play or effort of the players are discussed as secondary issues. You are correct in that Lavin is not the one shooting 3-18 or missing layups or failing to hustle defending the perimeter. I see the exasperation in his expressions but to his credit, unlike a Bob Huggins or Mike Rice or coach Joe Blow, he has not taken it out on his players.