What if?
- Thread starter danfog
- Start date
It's odd actually winning games following a Tournament year. Feels like whenever we limp into the Tournament, we're supposed to follow that up with 3 years of mediocrity. That obviously is just a St. John's thing, though, and has everything to do with the staff. Last year I'd say we would've went 11-7 in conference with CMA as coach.
[quote="Logen" post=366832]Who knows? All of the current players certainly seem to have bought in to Anderson and staff. Would that have happened with last years team? Who knows?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.
[quote="MCNPA" post=366836][quote="Logen" post=366832]Who knows? All of the current players certainly seem to have bought in to Anderson and staff. Would that have happened with last years team? Who knows?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.
[quote="Logen" post=366853][quote="MCNPA" post=366836][quote="Logen" post=366832]Who knows? All of the current players certainly seem to have bought in to Anderson and staff. Would that have happened with last years team? Who knows?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.
Last edited:
[quote="MCNPA" post=366854][quote="Logen" post=366853][quote="MCNPA" post=366836][quote="Logen" post=366832]Who knows? All of the current players certainly seem to have bought in to Anderson and staff. Would that have happened with last years team? Who knows?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.[/quote]
Well we also disagree here, we had an absolute ton of dysfunction last year and not all caused by the coaches. I am not going there with individual players but still, you miss my point. If the players bought in, I agree wholeheartedly we would have been better. I just don’t believe it is a slam dunk that some of the players on that team would have bought in.
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.[/quote]
Well we also disagree here, we had an absolute ton of dysfunction last year and not all caused by the coaches. I am not going there with individual players but still, you miss my point. If the players bought in, I agree wholeheartedly we would have been better. I just don’t believe it is a slam dunk that some of the players on that team would have bought in.
[quote="Logen" post=366860][quote="MCNPA" post=366854][quote="Logen" post=366853][quote="MCNPA" post=366836][quote="Logen" post=366832]Who knows? All of the current players certainly seem to have bought in to Anderson and staff. Would that have happened with last years team? Who knows?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.[/quote]
Well we also disagree here, we had an absolute ton of dysfunction last year and not all caused by the coaches. I am not going there with individual players but still, you miss my point. If the players bought in, I agree wholeheartedly we would have been better. I just don’t believe it is a slam dunk that some of the players on that team would have bought in.[/quote]
Hard to say. Maybe the case. But good leaders and good coaches motivate and coach well. Anderson is a career winner and probably a bit underrated in terms of not really being a “big name” in the sport, considering his record. I think a lot of e dysfunction was due to lack of leadership. The players and their dysfunction, don’t get much traction with good, strong coaches in charge. Look at great and consistent coaches like
Izzo, Jim Calhoun etc. One never wondered who was in charge nor “buying in”. Eli Wright didn’t “buy in” this year and he was gone and quick.
I do get your point but I think the 3 talented starters we lost in Ponds, Simon and Clark would almost all have bought in with maybe Ponds being a bit of a primadonna. That said, his game would have been more compete with a year under Anderson. I have no doubt that Clark and Simon would have bought in.
My thought is that good coaches get players on board and the ones that don’t get on board, don’t play or transfer. We had more talent on our team than we used last year, and that’s all lack of coaching.
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.[/quote]
Well we also disagree here, we had an absolute ton of dysfunction last year and not all caused by the coaches. I am not going there with individual players but still, you miss my point. If the players bought in, I agree wholeheartedly we would have been better. I just don’t believe it is a slam dunk that some of the players on that team would have bought in.[/quote]
Hard to say. Maybe the case. But good leaders and good coaches motivate and coach well. Anderson is a career winner and probably a bit underrated in terms of not really being a “big name” in the sport, considering his record. I think a lot of e dysfunction was due to lack of leadership. The players and their dysfunction, don’t get much traction with good, strong coaches in charge. Look at great and consistent coaches like
Izzo, Jim Calhoun etc. One never wondered who was in charge nor “buying in”. Eli Wright didn’t “buy in” this year and he was gone and quick.
I do get your point but I think the 3 talented starters we lost in Ponds, Simon and Clark would almost all have bought in with maybe Ponds being a bit of a primadonna. That said, his game would have been more compete with a year under Anderson. I have no doubt that Clark and Simon would have bought in.
My thought is that good coaches get players on board and the ones that don’t get on board, don’t play or transfer. We had more talent on our team than we used last year, and that’s all lack of coaching.
Last edited:
[quote="MCNPA" post=366864][quote="Logen" post=366860][quote="MCNPA" post=366854][quote="Logen" post=366853][quote="MCNPA" post=366836][quote="Logen" post=366832]Who knows? All of the current players certainly seem to have bought in to Anderson and staff. Would that have happened with last years team? Who knows?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.[/quote]
Well we also disagree here, we had an absolute ton of dysfunction last year and not all caused by the coaches. I am not going there with individual players but still, you miss my point. If the players bought in, I agree wholeheartedly we would have been better. I just don’t believe it is a slam dunk that some of the players on that team would have bought in.[/quote]
Hard to say. Maybe the case. But good leaders and good coaches motivate and coach well. Anderson is a career winner and probably a bit underrated in terms of not really being a “big name” in the sport, considering his record. I think a lot of e dysfunction was due to lack of leadership. The players and their dysfunction, don’t get much traction with good, strong coaches in charge. Look at great and consistent coaches like
Izzo, Jim Calhoun etc. One never wondered who was in charge nor “buying in”. Eli Wright didn’t “buy in” this year and he was gone and quick.
I do get your point but I think the 3 talented starters we lost in Ponds, Simon and Clark would almost all have bought in with maybe Ponds being a bit of a primadonna. That said, his game would have been more compete with a year under Anderson. I have no doubt that Clark and Simon would have bought in.
My thought is that good coaches get players on board and the ones that don’t get on board, don’t play or transfer. We had more talent on our team than we used last year, and that’s all lack of coaching.[/quote]
Well, your assumption is they all would have bought in, mine is I don’t know.
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.[/quote]
Well we also disagree here, we had an absolute ton of dysfunction last year and not all caused by the coaches. I am not going there with individual players but still, you miss my point. If the players bought in, I agree wholeheartedly we would have been better. I just don’t believe it is a slam dunk that some of the players on that team would have bought in.[/quote]
Hard to say. Maybe the case. But good leaders and good coaches motivate and coach well. Anderson is a career winner and probably a bit underrated in terms of not really being a “big name” in the sport, considering his record. I think a lot of e dysfunction was due to lack of leadership. The players and their dysfunction, don’t get much traction with good, strong coaches in charge. Look at great and consistent coaches like
Izzo, Jim Calhoun etc. One never wondered who was in charge nor “buying in”. Eli Wright didn’t “buy in” this year and he was gone and quick.
I do get your point but I think the 3 talented starters we lost in Ponds, Simon and Clark would almost all have bought in with maybe Ponds being a bit of a primadonna. That said, his game would have been more compete with a year under Anderson. I have no doubt that Clark and Simon would have bought in.
My thought is that good coaches get players on board and the ones that don’t get on board, don’t play or transfer. We had more talent on our team than we used last year, and that’s all lack of coaching.[/quote]
Well, your assumption is they all would have bought in, mine is I don’t know.
beast of the east
Active member
[quote="MCNPA" post=366864][quote="Logen" post=366860][quote="MCNPA" post=366854][quote="Logen" post=366853][quote="MCNPA" post=366836][quote="Logen" post=366832]Who knows? All of the current players certainly seem to have bought in to Anderson and staff. Would that have happened with last years team? Who knows?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.[/quote]
Well we also disagree here, we had an absolute ton of dysfunction last year and not all caused by the coaches. I am not going there with individual players but still, you miss my point. If the players bought in, I agree wholeheartedly we would have been better. I just don’t believe it is a slam dunk that some of the players on that team would have bought in.[/quote]
Hard to say. Maybe the case. But good leaders and good coaches motivate and coach well. Anderson is a career winner and probably a bit underrated in terms of not really being a “big name” in the sport, considering his record. I think a lot of e dysfunction was due to lack of leadership. The players and their dysfunction, don’t get much traction with good, strong coaches in charge. Look at great and consistent coaches like
Izzo, Jim Calhoun etc. One never wondered who was in charge nor “buying in”. Eli Wright didn’t “buy in” this year and he was gone and quick.
I do get your point but I think the 3 talented starters we lost in Ponds, Simon and Clark would almost all have bought in with maybe Ponds being a bit of a primadonna. That said, his game would have been more compete with a year under Anderson. I have no doubt that Clark and Simon would have bought in.
My thought is that good coaches get players on board and the ones that don’t get on board, don’t play or transfer. We had more talent on our team than we used last year, and that’s all lack of coaching.[/quote]
The argument of Clark playing on the perimeter in Mullins offense dissolves when you consider that in Anderson's offense LJ's 3 point attempts are up substantially, and he is a guy you'd hope would score more inside than out.
Last season, especially in the 2nd half, ponds stopped doing all the things he did well in the first half, and down the stretch no one could make shots consistently. Paper thin bench and you know the rest.
I'd reserve judgment till we get through 6 big east games.
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.[/quote]
Well we also disagree here, we had an absolute ton of dysfunction last year and not all caused by the coaches. I am not going there with individual players but still, you miss my point. If the players bought in, I agree wholeheartedly we would have been better. I just don’t believe it is a slam dunk that some of the players on that team would have bought in.[/quote]
Hard to say. Maybe the case. But good leaders and good coaches motivate and coach well. Anderson is a career winner and probably a bit underrated in terms of not really being a “big name” in the sport, considering his record. I think a lot of e dysfunction was due to lack of leadership. The players and their dysfunction, don’t get much traction with good, strong coaches in charge. Look at great and consistent coaches like
Izzo, Jim Calhoun etc. One never wondered who was in charge nor “buying in”. Eli Wright didn’t “buy in” this year and he was gone and quick.
I do get your point but I think the 3 talented starters we lost in Ponds, Simon and Clark would almost all have bought in with maybe Ponds being a bit of a primadonna. That said, his game would have been more compete with a year under Anderson. I have no doubt that Clark and Simon would have bought in.
My thought is that good coaches get players on board and the ones that don’t get on board, don’t play or transfer. We had more talent on our team than we used last year, and that’s all lack of coaching.[/quote]
The argument of Clark playing on the perimeter in Mullins offense dissolves when you consider that in Anderson's offense LJ's 3 point attempts are up substantially, and he is a guy you'd hope would score more inside than out.
Last season, especially in the 2nd half, ponds stopped doing all the things he did well in the first half, and down the stretch no one could make shots consistently. Paper thin bench and you know the rest.
I'd reserve judgment till we get through 6 big east games.
Not entirely sure how much better we’d be, but one thing I do know, is Justin Simon and Mike Anderson were a match made in heaven. Would’ve been nice if Simon stayed
[quote="Beast of the East" post=366878][quote="MCNPA" post=366864][quote="Logen" post=366860][quote="MCNPA" post=366854][quote="Logen" post=366853][quote="MCNPA" post=366836][quote="Logen" post=366832]Who knows? All of the current players certainly seem to have bought in to Anderson and staff. Would that have happened with last years team? Who knows?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.[/quote]
Well we also disagree here, we had an absolute ton of dysfunction last year and not all caused by the coaches. I am not going there with individual players but still, you miss my point. If the players bought in, I agree wholeheartedly we would have been better. I just don’t believe it is a slam dunk that some of the players on that team would have bought in.[/quote]
Hard to say. Maybe the case. But good leaders and good coaches motivate and coach well. Anderson is a career winner and probably a bit underrated in terms of not really being a “big name” in the sport, considering his record. I think a lot of e dysfunction was due to lack of leadership. The players and their dysfunction, don’t get much traction with good, strong coaches in charge. Look at great and consistent coaches like
Izzo, Jim Calhoun etc. One never wondered who was in charge nor “buying in”. Eli Wright didn’t “buy in” this year and he was gone and quick.
I do get your point but I think the 3 talented starters we lost in Ponds, Simon and Clark would almost all have bought in with maybe Ponds being a bit of a primadonna. That said, his game would have been more compete with a year under Anderson. I have no doubt that Clark and Simon would have bought in.
My thought is that good coaches get players on board and the ones that don’t get on board, don’t play or transfer. We had more talent on our team than we used last year, and that’s all lack of coaching.[/quote]
The argument of Clark playing on the perimeter in Mullins offense dissolves when you consider that in Anderson's offense LJ's 3 point attempts are up substantially, and he is a guy you'd hope would score more inside than out.
Last season, especially in the 2nd half, ponds stopped doing all the things he did well in the first half, and down the stretch no one could make shots consistently. Paper thin bench and you know the rest.
I'd reserve judgment till we get through 6 big east games.[/quote]
LJ more an inside guy? Not a chance. He’s a wing. His threes being up is fine because... we need a wing!! He drives as well but needs to be an outside threat. He’s pretty much our sole small forward. And the paper thin bench seems yellow-pages thick this year. I have zero doubt we’d have had a much more cohesive team.
I don’t think it’s a nobody knows type scenario. We’d be using our bench and rebounding much more. I think our offense would use better spacing and we’d be a lot more aggressive at both ends. Anderson is clearly a better coach than Mullin and I think we’d have been more consistent. Again, it’s just speculation but we’ve all seen a lot of progression under Anderson within less talent in the starting lineup. I think we’d have been more focused at minimum, with better preparation for games.[/quote]
Assuming everybody bought in to all of that which was my point. Exactly how do you know that would have happened? Yes, Anderson is a better coach than Mullin, no question, but players play and there is no way of knowing who would have bought in to what. Or whether it would have been more SJU dysfunction if they did not, getting Anderson off to a rough start. I guess you feel you know exactly what would have happened but I’m not sure how.[/quote]
Well the truth is that we didn’t have a lot of dysfunction. We had a good share of shitty coaching though. Our team was fun last year but was mega inconsistent and was taught not to go for rebounds. We often looked confused. Guys like Marvin Clark, Simon etc did what they were told to do out there.
I’m looking at what we have this year so far, which is a bunch of kids that didn’t play at all last year contributing to our depth in an extremely meaningful manner. Our offense last year would die by the 5-out, no rebounding philosophy and we just won a big game at the garden on defense and rebounding and our bench that Mullin would only use in the last 30 seconds of the game.
At minimum we would have developed our bench more last year. I also think our starting 5 would have greatly benefitted from good coaching, and why wouldn’t they?
I don’t know exactly what they’d have done, but Clark wouldn’t have just been a perimeter guy and my hunch is that we’d be playing a lot more like thi season but with quite a bit more talent like Ponds, Clark and Simon.[/quote]
Well we also disagree here, we had an absolute ton of dysfunction last year and not all caused by the coaches. I am not going there with individual players but still, you miss my point. If the players bought in, I agree wholeheartedly we would have been better. I just don’t believe it is a slam dunk that some of the players on that team would have bought in.[/quote]
Hard to say. Maybe the case. But good leaders and good coaches motivate and coach well. Anderson is a career winner and probably a bit underrated in terms of not really being a “big name” in the sport, considering his record. I think a lot of e dysfunction was due to lack of leadership. The players and their dysfunction, don’t get much traction with good, strong coaches in charge. Look at great and consistent coaches like
Izzo, Jim Calhoun etc. One never wondered who was in charge nor “buying in”. Eli Wright didn’t “buy in” this year and he was gone and quick.
I do get your point but I think the 3 talented starters we lost in Ponds, Simon and Clark would almost all have bought in with maybe Ponds being a bit of a primadonna. That said, his game would have been more compete with a year under Anderson. I have no doubt that Clark and Simon would have bought in.
My thought is that good coaches get players on board and the ones that don’t get on board, don’t play or transfer. We had more talent on our team than we used last year, and that’s all lack of coaching.[/quote]
The argument of Clark playing on the perimeter in Mullins offense dissolves when you consider that in Anderson's offense LJ's 3 point attempts are up substantially, and he is a guy you'd hope would score more inside than out.
Last season, especially in the 2nd half, ponds stopped doing all the things he did well in the first half, and down the stretch no one could make shots consistently. Paper thin bench and you know the rest.
I'd reserve judgment till we get through 6 big east games.[/quote]
LJ more an inside guy? Not a chance. He’s a wing. His threes being up is fine because... we need a wing!! He drives as well but needs to be an outside threat. He’s pretty much our sole small forward. And the paper thin bench seems yellow-pages thick this year. I have zero doubt we’d have had a much more cohesive team.
Look, I am as big a fan of Chris Mullin as a player as you'll ever find (I was at St John's when he played), but he brought absolutely none of the energy and passion he had as a player to coaching this team. I look at the last 3 years as a lost opportunity as we had players here who would have greatly benefitted from a real coach, a real system and a real commitment to teaching and improving.
Chris brought none of that here. It was a disservice to the school, as well as to the players who were here.
The fact that there are 3 players producing here who never really got off the bench last year is exhibit #1. Yeah, you have to give a little nod to the fact that by virtue of their being a year older, they would be a year better, but I am not sure anyone believes that (even if they stayed), Roberts, Erlington or Williams would be as productive under the old regime. Last year, most on here thought from what we saw that these players were not "Big East caliber".
The lazy "position-less basketball" and "de-emphsis on rebounding" experiments were utter failures, and we see this year that if you play basic fundamental defense and offense, even modestly talented players can succeed. I have seen enought to really like this coach, and re-confirm my personal belief that you can't hire incompetent people to do these jobs. Unfortunately, as a coach, Chris, and his staff, fall into that category. Yes, we won't know until Steere is back and we're into the BE schedule who well we can do this year but I am certain that we will exceed any success we would have seen had we not made the change in coach.
This is not to crap on Chris or his staff, but to simply point out that they were ill prepared to succeed here, and I belive not fully commmitted to do what you have to do on thyis level to be successful. I am not breaking any new ground with that statement - we all know it. In contrast, Coach Anderson is the consummate professional. We see the difference.
Chris brought none of that here. It was a disservice to the school, as well as to the players who were here.
The fact that there are 3 players producing here who never really got off the bench last year is exhibit #1. Yeah, you have to give a little nod to the fact that by virtue of their being a year older, they would be a year better, but I am not sure anyone believes that (even if they stayed), Roberts, Erlington or Williams would be as productive under the old regime. Last year, most on here thought from what we saw that these players were not "Big East caliber".
The lazy "position-less basketball" and "de-emphsis on rebounding" experiments were utter failures, and we see this year that if you play basic fundamental defense and offense, even modestly talented players can succeed. I have seen enought to really like this coach, and re-confirm my personal belief that you can't hire incompetent people to do these jobs. Unfortunately, as a coach, Chris, and his staff, fall into that category. Yes, we won't know until Steere is back and we're into the BE schedule who well we can do this year but I am certain that we will exceed any success we would have seen had we not made the change in coach.
This is not to crap on Chris or his staff, but to simply point out that they were ill prepared to succeed here, and I belive not fully commmitted to do what you have to do on thyis level to be successful. I am not breaking any new ground with that statement - we all know it. In contrast, Coach Anderson is the consummate professional. We see the difference.
JohnnyFever
Active member
I think guys like Simon, Owens, Clark, etc. would've liked CMA and we probably have a better season last year, but I doubt Ponds would've been much different. Ponds is one of the best players we've ever had and we all love the kid, but we all know he wasn't mentally there too often in games. Didn't seem very disciplined and was not in great shape compared to what he could've been.
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=366909]I think guys like Simon, Owens, Clark, etc. would've liked CMA and we probably have a better season last year, but I doubt Ponds would've been much different. Ponds is one of the best players we've ever had and we all love the kid, but we all know he wasn't mentally there too often in games. Didn't seem very disciplined and was not in great shape compared to what he could've been.[/quote]
I don't think one should assume That Ponds would not have adapted once he realized CMA does not suffer fools lightly. We have seen him pull players for bone head plays and we have seen the physical changes in the returning players. Ponds would have been helped as he had the highest body fat composition of the players in the NBA draft last year--a year at Camp Mike would have changed all that.
I don't think one should assume That Ponds would not have adapted once he realized CMA does not suffer fools lightly. We have seen him pull players for bone head plays and we have seen the physical changes in the returning players. Ponds would have been helped as he had the highest body fat composition of the players in the NBA draft last year--a year at Camp Mike would have changed all that.
Ray Morgan
Well-known member
There isn't a great deal of difference between the top 50 college coaches. However, the difference between last season's staff and CMA is astounding. Not a person, beginning with Mullin, was prepared for the challenge of both coaching and recruiting in college, including instilling an environment of hard work, discipline and teamwork.
There is no way that CMA puts up with Ponds shot selection and lack of conditioning. That ridiculous Ponds slow dribble up the court against Duke last year wouldn't have lasted for more than 1 possession under CMA. I have not seen a coach of this quality at St. John's since Looie. There is no doubt that last year's team would have done a lot better under CMA. There is that much difference between staffs.
There is no way that CMA puts up with Ponds shot selection and lack of conditioning. That ridiculous Ponds slow dribble up the court against Duke last year wouldn't have lasted for more than 1 possession under CMA. I have not seen a coach of this quality at St. John's since Looie. There is no doubt that last year's team would have done a lot better under CMA. There is that much difference between staffs.