Man to man?

[Zelda Zonk]

i'll leave the rest of zelda's argument alone, but this is just factually incorrect

946* division 1 wins, only 1 coach has more
57 ncaa tournament victories, only 3 have more
5 final fours, only 9 have more

and not one of them has done so with fewer resources

you want to fight the completely pointless jb basketball philosophy fight for the nth time go ahead, but attacking the man's absolute top flight accomplishments is the wrong way to do it, imho

You list some 'statistics,' which aren't 'facts' that disprove my perspective. And, in citing them, you're only supporting my viewpoint.
The other side of your stats:
• The 'one' coach is part of the equation. But there are others, in any given year or era.
• 946 is a career mark. It doesn't represent now. It doesn't represent the last five years. I hope you don't believe that a coach's efficacy can be represented by a straight line. I think your position is that it doesn't matter what has happened lately, because the career legacy earns him the right to not be questioned at any point in the career. Which i would suggest is ridiculous. This is a web forum. If conversation about both sides of any aspect of the program aren't encouraged, it's just a pep rally, and those are insipid.
• 9 have more. Okay. Well, there you go again. Their opinions would seem to have some weight, then, no?
• 1 championship in 43 years doesn't say 'infallible genius' to me. To you, maybe.
• Your definition of "resources" must be different from mine. I see the Carrier Dome as having been one of the most significant recruiting tools in CBB history. I think the fact that we were 1-2 in terms of numbers of best recruits in the BE over the history of the conference as being a significant set of resources. The Melo Center was considered a resource.

All of which is moot, because you have no idea what 'criticisms' i might have. You're just campaigning on the foundation that because JB has done 'great things' that any criticism is unwarranted/invalid. If that's your idea of 'critical thinking,' there isn't any discussion to be had. Continue to worship your gods.

 

[moqui]

You list some 'statistics,' which aren't 'facts' that disprove my perspective. And, in citing them, you're only supporting my viewpoint.
The other side of your stats:
• The 'one' coach is part of the equation. But there are others, in any given year or era.
• 946 is a career mark. It doesn't represent now. It doesn't represent the last five years. I hope you don't believe that a coach's efficacy can be represented by a straight line. I think your position is that it doesn't matter what has happened lately, because the career legacy earns him the right to not be questioned at any point in the career. Which i would suggest is ridiculous. This is a web forum. If conversation about both sides of any aspect of the program aren't encouraged, it's just a pep rally, and those are insipid.
• 9 have more. Okay. Well, there you go again. Their opinions would seem to have some weight, then, no?
• 1 championship in 43 years doesn't say 'infallible genius' to me. To you, maybe.
• Your definition of "resources" must be different from mine. I see the Carrier Dome as having been one of the most significant recruiting tools in CBB history. I think the fact that we were 1-2 in terms of numbers of best recruits in the BE over the history of the conference as being a significant set of resources. The Melo Center was considered a resource.

All of which is moot, because you have no idea what 'criticisms' i might have. You're just campaigning on the foundation that because JB has done 'great things' that any criticism is unwarranted/invalid. If that's your idea of 'critical thinking,' there isn't any discussion to be had. Continue to worship your gods.

you said others have done more with less
name them

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

It is, of course, unknown how well we might have recruited if we were not zone only.

But you’ve got nothing that suggests playing zone hurts recruiting?

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

You list some 'statistics,' which aren't 'facts' that disprove my perspective. And, in citing them, you're only supporting my viewpoint.
The other side of your stats:
• The 'one' coach is part of the equation. But there are others, in any given year or era.
• 946 is a career mark. It doesn't represent now. It doesn't represent the last five years. I hope you don't believe that a coach's efficacy can be represented by a straight line. I think your position is that it doesn't matter what has happened lately, because the career legacy earns him the right to not be questioned at any point in the career. Which i would suggest is ridiculous. This is a web forum. If conversation about both sides of any aspect of the program aren't encouraged, it's just a pep rally, and those are insipid.
• 9 have more. Okay. Well, there you go again. Their opinions would seem to have some weight, then, no?
• 1 championship in 43 years doesn't say 'infallible genius' to me. To you, maybe.
• Your definition of "resources" must be different from mine. I see the Carrier Dome as having been one of the most significant recruiting tools in CBB history. I think the fact that we were 1-2 in terms of numbers of best recruits in the BE over the history of the conference as being a significant set of resources. The Melo Center was considered a resource.

All of which is moot, because you have no idea what 'criticisms' i might have. You're just campaigning on the foundation that because JB has done 'great things' that any criticism is unwarranted/invalid. If that's your idea of 'critical thinking,' there isn't any discussion to be had. Continue to worship your gods.

where does anyone call him an infallible genius? Who said he can’t be questioned? Where does anyone imply that he is a God?

Most of us believe he is a great coach. I believe that is widely accepted among his peers and the press in college basketball. Sounds like you don’t agree.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Five final fours*






*In 43 years.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

where does anyone call him an infallible genius? Who said he can’t be questioned? Where does anyone imply that he is a God?

Most of us believe he is a great coach. I believe that is widely accepted among his peers and the press in college basketball. Sounds like you don’t ageee.

None of that relates to what I’ve been talking about.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

you said others have done more with less
name them

That wasn’t a statement about a career. Coaches don’t make decisions that last 43 years. I guess that misunderstanding explains your sensitivity.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

None of that relates to what I’ve been talking about.

None of what? Did you even read what I posted? You’re the one using “infallible genius” and “worship your gods” and “not to be questioned”. The guy took his team to the FF a few years ago, BTW.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

None of what? Did you even read what I posted? You’re the one using “infallible genius” and “worship your gods” and “not to be questioned”. The guy took his team to the FF a few years ago, BTW.

Because that was the gist of my conceptual argument upthread. If you’re starting something new, define it.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Because that was the gist of my conceptual argument upthread. If you’re starting something new, define it.

I’m just responding to what you posted, some of which seems made up.

 

[moqui]

That wasn’t a statement about a career.

no, it was cherry picking moments of perceived disappointment. that was not a misunderstanding on my part, i knew full well what you were doing

you made a very specific claim, so, again: who are the multiple coaches who have achieved better results with fewer resources?

 

[malpearl31]

But you’ve got nothing that suggests playing zone hurts recruiting?

Don't know if anybody here subscribes to The Athletic, but they're running a series of "State of the Hoops Program" preview stories about most of the higher level D-1 programs, and I thought there was something interesting and relevant to this thread in the Butler preview, of all places.

Specifically, the article talks about Jordan Tucker (remember him?) and some adjustments he's had to make since transferring from Duke to Butler. Quoting from the article: "Tucker knows he needs to be a better defender. He’d played zone at Duke and didn’t have a great understanding of man-to-man principles or how to defend multiple actions until he got to Butler."

So my thought was - for all of the back-and-forth about Zone versus Man defense and recruiting... it sure hasn't seemed to hurt Duke in recruiting these past few years, has it?

 

[Zelda Zonk]

I’m just responding to what you posted, some of which seems made up.

You're taking my comments from one discussion (with Townie) and inserting them into a different context.
What, specifically, seems "made up?"

 

[Zelda Zonk]

no, it was cherry picking moments of perceived disappointment. that was not a misunderstanding on my part, i knew full well what you were doing

you made a very specific claim, so, again: who are the multiple coaches who have achieved better results with fewer resources?

Yeah, your first sentence is wrong. What "perceived disappointment" are you talking about? That is a misunderstanding, only you don't understand that you don't understand it.
Until you get the first part, the naming of coaches won't matter.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

You're taking my comments from one discussion (with Townie) and inserting them into a different context.
What, specifically, seems "made up?"

I responded directly to your response to Moqui:

“You list some 'statistics,' which aren't 'facts' that disprove my perspective. And, in citing them, you're only supporting my viewpoint.
The other side of your stats:
• The 'one' coach is part of the equation. But there are others, in any given year or era.
• 946 is a career mark. It doesn't represent now. It doesn't represent the last five years. I hope you don't believe that a coach's efficacy can be represented by a straight line. I think your position is that it doesn't matter what has happened lately, because the career legacy earns him the right to not be questioned at any point in the career. Which i would suggest is ridiculous. This is a web forum. If conversation about both sides of any aspect of the program aren't encouraged, it's just a pep rally, and those are insipid.
• 9 have more. Okay. Well, there you go again. Their opinions would seem to have some weight, then, no?
• 1 championship in 43 years doesn't say 'infallible genius' to me. To you, maybe.
• Your definition of "resources" must be different from mine. I see the Carrier Dome as having been one of the most significant recruiting tools in CBB history. I think the fact that we were 1-2 in terms of numbers of best recruits in the BE over the history of the conference as being a significant set of resources. The Melo Center was considered a resource.

All of which is moot, because you have no idea what 'criticisms' i might have. You're just campaigning on the foundation that because JB has done 'great things' that any criticism is unwarranted/invalid. If that's your idea of 'critical thinking,' there isn't any discussion to be had. Continue to worship your gods”

The bold sections are the ones that seen made up. Since nobody here has ever posted any of it. Ever.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Don't know if anybody here subscribes to The Athletic, but they're running a series of "State of the Hoops Program" preview stories about most of the higher level D-1 programs, and I thought there was something interesting and relevant to this thread in the Butler preview, of all places.

Specifically, the article talks about Jordan Tucker (remember him?) and some adjustments he's had to make since transferring from Duke to Butler. Quoting from the article: "Tucker knows he needs to be a better defender. He’d played zone at Duke and didn’t have a great understanding of man-to-man principles or how to defend multiple actions until he got to Butler."

So my thought was - for all of the back-and-forth about Zone versus Man defense and recruiting... it sure hasn't seemed to hurt Duke in recruiting these past few years, has it?

Mike Hopkins is recruiting pretty well too at UW playing zone.

 

[ebucklewis]

Yeah, your first sentence is wrong. What "perceived disappointment" are you talking about? That is a misunderstanding, only you don't understand that you don't understand it.
Until you get the first part, the naming of coaches won't matter.

"Fact is, JB has been wrong, has changed his mind, has never been the best coach, and other coaches have done things differently with better results and fewer resources."

I think he is asking for examples, I also would like to see who you are referring to here..

 

[malpearl31]

Mike Hopkins is recruiting pretty well too at UW playing zone.

Very good point. I think it matters a lot less to potential recruits than many of us think it does.

 

[moqui]

Yeah, your first sentence is wrong. What "perceived disappointment" are you talking about? That is a misunderstanding, only you don't understand that you don't understand it.
Until you get the first part, the naming of coaches won't matter.

idk, you tell me. you're the one who's perception of jb is that he has not accomplished as much as others with fewer resources.

you know that such people don't exist so you're only play is to muddy the waters.

/end thread

 

[Zelda Zonk]

I responded directly to your response to Moqui:

“You list some 'statistics,' which aren't 'facts' that disprove my perspective. And, in citing them, you're only supporting my viewpoint.
The other side of your stats:
• The 'one' coach is part of the equation. But there are others, in any given year or era.
• 946 is a career mark. It doesn't represent now. It doesn't represent the last five years. I hope you don't believe that a coach's efficacy can be represented by a straight line. I think your position is that it doesn't matter what has happened lately, because the career legacy earns him the right to not be questioned at any point in the career. Which i would suggest is ridiculous. This is a web forum. If conversation about both sides of any aspect of the program aren't encouraged, it's just a pep rally, and those are insipid.
• 9 have more. Okay. Well, there you go again. Their opinions would seem to have some weight, then, no?
• 1 championship in 43 years doesn't say 'infallible genius' to me. To you, maybe.
• Your definition of "resources" must be different from mine. I see the Carrier Dome as having been one of the most significant recruiting tools in CBB history. I think the fact that we were 1-2 in terms of numbers of best recruits in the BE over the history of the conference as being a significant set of resources. The Melo Center was considered a resource.

All of which is moot, because you have no idea what 'criticisms' i might have. You're just campaigning on the foundation that because JB has done 'great things' that any criticism is unwarranted/invalid. If that's your idea of 'critical thinking,' there isn't any discussion to be had. Continue to worship your gods”

The bold sections are the ones that seen made up. Since nobody here has ever posted any of it. Ever.

The first is what i was arguing against, which seemed to be Townie's position.
The second is my opinion. So, no, not "made up."

Still moot, as my original discussion was not with Moqui. If he's piggybacking on Townie's perspective(s), then the context should remain there.

Funny, though, how you all pounced, yet i haven't actually made a single criticism of JB here. This was about the concept of whether it's valid to have criticisms. And whether or not i name coaches who have, at some point or another, done something 'better' than JB did for comparison's sake—that, too, is moot, because those same coaches would still have criticisms of them. The most basic point is that JB is not 'the' best coach, and whoever is 'the' best coach still has (valid) criticism levied against him. I mean, hell, Coach K is constantly discussed on this board as being a 'bad bench coach.' Same with Roy, same with Izzo, et al, ad infinitum...

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

I never debated that, I'm talking about the m2m principals.

Good article here that may help you understand.

“It’s viewed as simple and passive, five long-limbed guys taking up space. In reality, it’s complex and aggressive, a series of moving parts forcing offenses to react and tricking them into the wrong spaces on the court. The Syracuse zone, really, is multiple defenses concealed under one general formation.

“People don’t really understand, because they think we’re just playing a regular zone,” Murphy said. “There are so many principles to it.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2016/04/01/why-the-syracuse-2-3-zone-keeps-reaching-the-final-four/

Very true, I've always compared our defense to Tarks.

Pretty much my point about the debate was Rafferty said something and its been stated as gospel when in all reality we're just built for zone and practice zone more than anybody else.

In reality, our zone is unique because it is adjustable, we trap a lot, and there are a lot of nuances to it, in addition to being built for it, and practicing it more.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

idk, you tell me. you're the one who's perception of jb is that he has not accomplished as much as others with fewer resources.

you know that such people don't exist so you're only play is to muddy the waters.

/end thread

Because that wasn't the point/statement/meaning. I keep saying this, and you're not getting it: you're couching that statement in terms of a career, and that's not how i intended it. You've also got it as an 'absolute,' and it's not. It's relative and contextual. But, somehow, anything not 100% pro-JB gets panties into wads and people jump ugly, assuming everything is an assault... How about this. Look at it the other way. Can you not name a coach who, in a given year, accomplished more than JB with 'fewer resources?' I hope that makes it easier for you to digest.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

The first is what i was arguing against, which seemed to be Townie's position.
The second is my opinion. So, no, not "made up."

Still moot, as my original discussion was not with Moqui. If he's piggybacking on Townie's perspective(s), then the context should remain there.

Funny, though, how you all pounced, yet i haven't actually made a single criticism of JB here. This was about the concept of whether it's valid to have criticisms. And whether or not i name coaches who have, at some point or another, done something 'better' than JB did for comparison's sake—that, too, is moot, because those same coaches would still have criticisms of them. The most basic point is that JB is not 'the' best coach, and whoever is 'the' best coach still has (valid) criticism levied against him. I mean, hell, Coach K is constantly discussed on this board as being a 'bad bench coach.' Same with Roy, same with Izzo, et al, ad infinitum...

But you’re the one implying that posters here think JB is infallible, a God, and can’t be questioned. Nobody posts that stuff. You’re making it up.

Nobody ”pounced”. You’re the one with the issues.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

But you’re the one implying that posters here think JB is infallible, a God, and can’t be questioned. Nobody posts that stuff. You’re making it up.

No one is stupid enough to actually say that, no. But, enough people have positioned themselves to align with that perspective. It's plenty evident in this thread.

EDIT: Oh... maybe i see where you've misunderstood... I said infallible genius in single quotes originally. That doesn't mean a direct quote. I use double quotes for direct quotations and singles to represent a thought, concept, or expression. I wasn't inventing quotations...

“Single quotes are used if you voice the person’s thoughts,” one writes. “Double are used for them speaking.”

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

But, somehow, anything not 100% pro-JB gets panties into wads and people jump ugly, assuming everything is an assault... “.

There you go again. Is it possible that people just disagree with you?