Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RF2044, post: 5443772, member: 40"] Oh no... I'm hopelessly vague! It doesn't matter what I, you, or anybody else thinks the identity should be. Misdirection, that is completely irrelevant. I am at a complete loss as to why you think that would have any applicability whatsoever to what Red will do, or should implement. Or why it is necessary for me to articulate what style of play I would prefer to see the program employ. What I DO know is that throwing shiz at the wall and hoping something sticks isn't a structured way to build a program. And that is why we've had difficulty building toward anything under this new head coach. HE is the one being vague. Perhaps Kline will help them hone-in on what they are looking for. And perhaps this new batch of players will align with whatever strategy Red [not me] is struggling to articulate. What I also know is that consistent, top programs [and I'm not just talking about the elite handful of top programs] have a core concept -- i.e., an identity -- and they systematically structure their team around that concept. Here are a couple of examples, and not just of the obvious teams atop the top 10. Purdue likes really tall pivots and values experienced players. Hence, they don't go out and chase top 20 caliber recruits -- they go after system fits that won't leave early, that they develop in their system, and in recent years many of those players have been all-american caliber guys, despite not being elite recruits. Marquette plays fast, and uses pressure defense to get out in transition. Smart recruits guys who are very athletic, get after it defensively, and have versatility to push the ball upcourt when they generate turnovers. Michigan State utilizes relentless rebounding and hitch up your shorts defense to slow games down and wear teams down over the course of the game. Notre Dame under Brey valued shooters, and redshirted a LOT of young players. Net result over much of the last 1/3 of his time there was that ND was a top 20 program, with experienced 4th / 5th year guys who offset playing against more athletic, higher rated recruits from other programs by being more experienced. Leonard Hamilton used to recruit guys who fit the relentless pressing defensive style he employed. That was more important to him than offensive skill. Boeheim recruited length for the zone, and loved structuring the offense around versatile forwards. You know what kind of teams AREN'T successful? The ones who don't try to build around an identity, and don't structure their personnel around the style of play they wish to employ. The ones where the coaches architect teams that don't do anything particularly well. That's not to imply that even for the coaches who DO have a strong core identity, every season is going to be outstanding. Sometimes, the personnel just isn't optimized. Most teams also have cyclical ups and downs. And some coaches don't have the chops to sustain success at the P4 level, despite not being "bad" coaches. But the notion that having an identity around which the team is built around is just some talking point is unadulterated bunk. What I want in terms of style of play is irrelevant. What I really want is for Red to pick a lane, and build something sustainable. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?