Gottleib: Boeheim "very good, not great"

[MyMeloMyMan]

I think many have copied Boeheim's use of the 2-3 zone - even Pitino who was a one-to-man coach when he arrived on the Hill back in 1976-77.

So, that part of the analysis by Gottlieb I think is wrong.

When was the last time a team went full zone for a game/season? Sure, there are teams that switch up their D's and play a few possessions in zone... or to exploit a matchup... but I dont ever remember L'ville playing 2-3 zone for a season or even a full game.

 

[moqui]

I really don't have a problem with Gottlieb [or any other broadcaster] talking about things this way, although I agree with Scooch above that these particular set of criteria are bizarre.

I don't think they are that bizarre . . . Gottlieb knows exactly what he is doing. He wants to generate some buzz in the hopes that translates into ratings. He picks the topic of the day and decides to go contrarian to stand out from the crowd. At that point, it's easy - find the most prominent chinks in JB's armor and elevate them to the most important criteria. Voila- instant buzz!

 

[moqui]

When was the last time a team went full zone for a game/season? Sure, there are teams that switch up their D's and play a few possessions in zone... or to exploit a matchup... but I dont ever remember L'ville playing 2-3 zone for a season or even a full game.

um . . . Eastern Michigan about 2 weeks ago

not sure any of the other BCS schools use it even 50% of the time, but there are probably 2 or 3 dozen mid majors that use zone as their primary defense

 

[RF2044]

I don't think they are that bizarre . . . Gottlieb knows exactly what he is doing. He wants to generate some buzz in the hopes that translates into ratings. He picks the topic of the day and decides to go contrarian to stand out from the crowd. At that point, it's easy - find the most prominent chinks in JB's armor and elevate them to the most important criteria. Voila- instant buzz!

Three of the four stand out to me as bizarre are the one about how good the players do in the NBA, and does the coach stay off probation, and do other coaches copy them.

The NBA point is bunk. Lots of coaches don't produce primo NBA talent, and many of them are great coaches. In fact, the opposite of what Gottlieb is implying might actually be true: that the success is even more impressive SANS oodles of high performing NBA talent. We almost beat Kentucky in 1996--we honestly did--which was perhaps the most NBA loaded team of all time, with a group that included only one eventual NBA player who was phenomenal at the collegiate level, but didn't have a ton of NBA success [John Wallace].

I have a notion about why he threw the probation variable into the hopper, but what he doesn't realize is that since that incident, SU instituted very stringent compliance enforcement. But taking his dig at face value--what does that make Calipari? Because by all accounts he is a fantastic coach, even though he's landed two programs on massive probation that led to vacating final four appearances. Just saying... :noidea:

It's a BS evaluative criteria.

Re: other coaches emulating the style, an alternate viewpoint is that Boeheim was / is an innovator. There's something to be said about not doing things the way that everybody else does, and not just having success but having wild amounts of success breaking the mold.

 

[orangefan13]

This whole thing by Gottlieb is Bullcrap and it wouldn't bother me but hes putting it on the media. Its not so much about stats as it is about expectations.

#1. First and foremost. Coaches don't know how ready their players are at the beggining or the end of the year. They can't make them or their team develop any quicker. Judging a coach on how good their team is, is very overated. Especially at the college level. So much has to bounce right that there is alot of Luck outside of coaching involved. Why use JB to break down coaches as very good or great based on winning? The guy has made a living outside of top 10 talent. Thats the way JB runs his system as well. He grabs players based on talent in high school and puts the best team together he can with them. Thets be real. For 5 of his 30 years he had more then 2 mcdonalds all americans on his team. Five. Teams like UK, Duke and UNC have gotten 3-4 almost every year. His team falls right behind them in winning percentage. With what he has been given he has achieved the best possible outside of a few more elite 8's and final fours. Also players leave early for the draft. Had Fab Melo or Dion waiters come back this year and we would be a monster. Had Rick Jackson came back last year maybe we win a title. Had Wes Johnson came back the year before we probably go to a final four. Had Flynn came back in 09-10 and AO was still healthy we would probably be better then Kansas that year. This how good is your team garbage is, is BS! Players leave for the NBA in heartbeat these days.

#2. JB coaches at a non state school. Name a coach who is better at a non state school other then Duke. You won't find one.
#3. As others said had they made the freethrows against Indiana he has 2 titles. And the recruiting would be better in the 90's for him. He had a late start in 03. Thats a awfull curse but the man didn't give up he got right back up despite a pretty mediocre 90's and took the title in 03 to raise his recruiting back to the level it was in the late 80's. Just hanging in there makes him a phenominal coach.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Unfortunately there are 3 things that pundits look at that hold weight more than anything.

1. How many final fours have you been too?
2. How many titles have you won?
3. How many of your players are successful in the NBA?

Thats it. Had Keith Smart's shot not gone in and JB wins 2 titles as opposed to just one they are putting him on Mt. Rushmore.

smart misses and JB and Knight are tied with 2.

Jeff VanGundy gave a great speach about Alan Houston's shot to beat miami in 99. im gonna skip right to the ending, which is his whole point, so to paraphrase 'as the ball is in the air going towards the hoop, all i can think is, my job will now be defined as such...it goes in...good coach. it misses...bad coach.'

if JB would be legendary because of 2, but not 1...thats bullspit.

 

[kuethstheman]

When was the last time a team went full zone for a game/season? Sure, there are teams that switch up their D's and play a few possessions in zone... or to exploit a matchup... but I dont ever remember L'ville playing 2-3 zone for a season or even a full game.

I think that a big increase in zone usage counts. I don't think you have to play it 100% to be considered a copycat.

 

[orangefan13]

imo.
How evolved your players are and how good your team is, is 100% luck. Even if your Duke, UNC, or UK.
Look how bad UK is playing this year. Duke wasn't all that good last year and lost in the first round. UNC 4 years ago had 5 mcdonalds all americans and didn't make the tournament. Our 03 team wasn't even in the top 25 at the beginning of the year neither was our 09-10 team that was tied for best in the country. Look what butler has done recently. VCU in the final four a few years ago.

I hate to see JB talked about in a catagory of winning titles and final fours. HATE IT because its a bullcrap way to evaluate coaches. imo.

 

[Knicks411]

I guess to play devil's advocate, the Kansas game in 2003 was really close. (well, at the end. We were comfortably in control most of the night( One or two plays go the other way in the last few minutes and JB has 0 titles.

In college, with the single elimination title, the rings are great, but also I think you should put some emphasis on stuff like regular season conference titles.

 

[SBU72]

I think many have copied Boeheim's use of the 2-3 zone - even Pitino who was a one-to-man coach when he arrived on the Hill back in 1976-77.

So, that part of the analysis by Gottlieb I think is wrong.

Problem with others not imatating his style is first of all you have to have the players to do it, long, lean and quick. Every announcer points that out. then unlike what some think here, you have to teach it correctly. We have seen that a zone that just shifts side to side and without a lot of activity gets beat easily. Only when players play the zone as hard as you would play m-2-m does it succeed. (bottom line, not a tavern league zone as somebody would put it.)

 

[igor]

Unfortunately there are 3 things that pundits look at that hold weight more than anything.

1. How many final fours have you been too?
2. How many titles have you won?
3. How many of your players are successful in the NBA?

Thats it. Had Keith Smart's shot not gone in and JB wins 2 titles as opposed to just one they are putting him on Mt. Rushmore.

keith smart's shot goes in because boeheim didn't pick up full court and go man he let smart dribble up unguarded and do what he does/ surprised gotleig wasnt deleted

 

[OrangePA]

When was the last time a team went full zone for a game/season? Sure, there are teams that switch up their D's and play a few possessions in zone... or to exploit a matchup... but I dont ever remember L'ville playing 2-3 zone for a season or even a full game.

How about John Chaney at Temple who used the same kind of zone - a loose match up zone? Played it all game long.

I'm sure I could come up with others.

The key here is that for many years the Bob Knight approach prevailed - all man-to-man.

And Boeheim has changed that thinking with his success.

 

[RF2044]

keith smart's shot goes in because boeheim didn't pick up full court and go man he let smart dribble up unguarded and do what he does/ surprised gotleig wasnt deleted

That's not remotely what happened leading up to that shot.

 

[br801]

How evolved your players are and how good your team is, is 100% luck. \

Come on, man. Do you ever read your stuff before posting?

 

[HOFCeluck]

I hate to see JB talked about in a catagory of winning titles and final fours. HATE IT because its a bullcrap way to evaluate coaches. imo.

It's a better way than just measuring absolute win number.

 

[CuseTroop]

keith smart's shot goes in because boeheim didn't pick up full court and go man he let smart dribble up unguarded and do what he does/ surprised gotleig wasnt deleted

LOL you are out of control

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Does anyone imitate Doug Gottleib's style?

I guess he's not a great reporter.

 

[orangefan13]

Come on, man. Do you ever read your stuff before posting?

Excellent it was acknowledged but sadly in the wrong way.

Look my point is this. Winning shouldn't base how good a coach is. Putting the best team you can together with the players you have does.

No coach knows...
A) how ready all their players will be before the year starts to make a great team. Except maybe 1 or 2 teams that bring back a ton of seniority.
B) how ready their freshmen will be. outside of 2 not 4-5 freshmen in the country they are raw.
C) how ready they will be all around. Coaches don't fill all the weaknesses on their team with recruiting over the offseason. They roll the dice hoping what they have will work.
D) how ready their team is come tournament time to win 6 straight games. Not to mention bad matchups for your teams in march and tough road enviroments that favor other teams even when you are the favorite.
E) if their better players will come back to go to a final four or go to the NBA
F) the other thousand things I am forgetting.

Even JB understands this. Hes a very humble coach when it comes to winning. Its sad to see Gottlieb go this path and rate JB on winning and Final fours. I would have rather kept that mindset away from JB who doesn't hold expectations that way. JB puts the best team he can with how ready his talent is. That is what he should be rated for. He Doesn't get 3-4 all americans every other year like DUKE, UNC, and UK. He has had 2 like 8 of his 30 years. Yet he is right behind them in winning.

I think its sad to judge a coach on winning. JB is very level headed and down to earth. I like us having huge hopes for the team even if it has to include hopefull ignorance. Thats what good fans do (guys like RutgersAl). We do our job and JB does his.

 

[Orangeyes]

How about John Chaney at Temple who used the same kind of zone - a loose match up zone? Played it all game long.

I'm sure I could come up with others.

The key here is that for many years the Bob Knight approach prevailed - all man-to-man.

And Boeheim has changed that thinking with his success.

Rolly employed a tough matchup zone at Nova. We always had trouble with it.

 

[jncuse]

What a bizarre criteria to define "greatness"?

What on earth do the last 3 have to do with, well, anything really?

They are indicators of great coaches. But that doesn't mean you have to be "yes" to them to be a great coach. To me that does not show that Boeheim is not a great coach --- it's that he is unique.

 

[TinyManInside]

JB is amazing. Period. To deny his greatness is completely assinine.

I definitely have issues with the minute details on how he runs his program at times, but to deny his stature as one of the greatest college basketball coaches of all times is grounds for becoming a laughing-stock as an analyst. I love Gottlieb 98% of the time but he's wrong on this one.

Mason

 

[Orangeyes]

He and John Feinstein do a "thought of the day thing that turns up on the score. He said that there are four ways to judge a coach:

1) Do you compete for national championships on a regular basis?

2) How well do your players do in the pros?

3) Do you stay off of probation?

4) Does anyone imitate your style?

Since he's been to only 4 Final Fours, (actually it's three, Doug, as a head coach), his players don't do well in the pros, he was on probation and no one imitates him, he's very good but not great, according to Doug.

Fire away.

Here is D Bag Doug

 

[moqui]

How about John Chaney at Temple who used the same kind of zone - a loose match up zone? Played it all game long.

I'm sure I could come up with others.

The key here is that for many years the Bob Knight approach prevailed - all man-to-man.

And Boeheim has changed that thinking with his success.

Dale Brown had a lot of success at LSU using his "freak defense," which was a flexible combination of several different zones, and of course Tark employed his "amoeba defense" which was a zone-with-man-principles approach.

 

[br801]

Excellent it was acknowledged but sadly in the wrong way.

Look my point is this. Winning shouldn't base how good a coach is. Putting the best team you can together with the players you have does.

No coach knows...
A) how ready all their players will be before the year starts to make a great team. Except maybe 1 or 2 teams that bring back a ton of seniority.
B) how ready their freshmen will be. outside of 2 not 4-5 freshmen in the country they are raw.
C) how ready they will be all around. Coaches don't fill all the weaknesses on their team with recruiting over the offseason. They roll the dice hoping what they have will work.
D) how ready their team is come tournament time to win 6 straight games. Not to mention bad matchups for your teams in march and tough road enviroments that favor other teams even when you are the favorite.
E) if their better players will come back to go to a final four or go to the NBA
F) the other thousand things I am forgetting.

Even JB understands this. Hes a very humble coach when it comes to winning. Its sad to see Gottlieb go this path and rate JB on winning and Final fours. I would have rather kept that mindset away from JB who doesn't hold expectations that way. JB puts the best team he can with how ready his talent is. That is what he should be rated for. He Doesn't get 3-4 all americans every other year like DUKE, UNC, and UK. He has had 2 like 8 of his 30 years. Yet he is right behind them in winning.

I think its sad to judge a coach on winning. JB is very level headed and down to earth. I like us having huge hopes for the team ignorantly. Thats what good fans do (guys like RutgersAl).

I was only taking issue your statement that "How evolved your players are and how good your team is, is 100% luck." That suggests that all teams have an equal chance of making the NCATT and winning a title.

I think you're really trying to say that the element of luck plays a significant role in how far good teams advance, and that the most you can ask of a coach is to put his team in an advantageous position for a deep run. That I can agree with, and in that sense JB has done an excellent job.

 

[OttoMets]

Don't care about "good" or "great."

Disagree with Gottlieb on three of four:

1.) Championships. Legitimate knock, good criterion.

2.) Pros. For the most part, who cares? Boeheim's job is to win games for Syracuse (well, and to educate young men, but we're not getting into that here). Was Lawrence Moten any less successful as a college basketball player because he didn't have a long NBA career? Does that reflect poorly on Boeheim? No and no.

3.) Probation. How's that for an arbitrary criterion? Forget for a second the liberalization of enforcement by the NCAA (Syracuse was punished 20 years ago, when teams actually got punished; most of Boeheim's peers in that era have been retired for years). Given the caprice with which the NCAA seems to bring the hammer down, dinging some schools and ignoring others, this can't be any reasonable measure of someone's success as a college coach. One can't judge a coach by conditioning his success on the decisions of a regulatory body. (And, if this were reasonable, how does it work? Is John Calipari a great coach today? If so, will he be a great coach in five years when the inevitable happens? Was Joe Paterno a great coach twelve months ago? How about now?)

4.) Imitation. Don't know if that's a good standard or not, but Boeheim meets it. Named assistant coach for Team USA for two Olympic games and everything else that goes with that (and while it could have been for his offense or his familiarity with treating players like professionals, I'm guessing it was more for the defense). A number of teams are using the 2-3 today. The guy's imitated.

He's an excellent coach. Pretty easy to see that; no need to nitpick about obvious flaws or throw in bizarre red herrings.