So, where did it all go so wrong?

[SWC75]

Agree with all, except for Grant. He is a stud. He is our best player and the biggest problem for opposing defenses. His shot is honestly not much worse than CJ, and his ability to get to the tin and draw fouls is much better. Run plays thru Ennis and Grant... its our only shot at this point.

Grant could become a stud forward if he gets stronger and his jumper gets a bit more consistent, (over a period of games, not just 1-2). I don't think he's there yet. Watch out next year if he's smart enough to come back.

 

[longislandcuse]

1.We have won a few close games where Fair didn't show up right at the end with Fair hitting a big shot. Last night he missed the only one he took. Hes the kind of guy that should break a smile even when he is missing and he knows that.

2. Since the ND game Cooney has been ice cold.

3. I give it to NCstate they did a good job stopping Ennis,Cooney, and Gbinije from driving. I don't think Ennis has been kept out of the midpost 1 game all year. Ennis has a way of outrunning our opponents down the stretch, come march that won't happen as much.

4. Cooney and Fair needed to step up obviously. This team is built where we want Fair to to be atleast a 40 percent shooter every night. When he gets down to the 20's like that we will be in danger of losing.

5. Most years I think we needed more from a SG I always hounded triche on this. Oddly enough I am not as tough on Cooney, because of his outside shot. I know the potential is there for him to hit a 2-3 big shots or to go off for 6-7. Keep in mind this was the guy who worked as hard as he can to get a good look before, when you are playing slower halfcourt basketball as we have the last month thats not his shooting game. Hes the one guy on this team that needs to be a offensive version of Kristoff or Pace every game in march, or we could lose. Defenses are going to be hungrier then ever and he needs to play his hardest.

Can't say enough about the return of Grant and our transition ball as of late. This team looked disinterested in Greensboro they were playing more go through the motions then do everything to win. Take note of that.

College basketball is about consistancy if our big four bring it on offense, then we could be the best team in the nation.Consistancy is the key to march, and this team became 25-0 with it.

You talk about us looking disinterested in Greensboro. I totally agree. It's like someone spiked out Gatorade with Zoloft. I watch all the teams in the ACC Tournament yelling, clapping, huddling up and I see so much unity and intensity. Where is that with this team? We take on the personality of our coach and I hate that. The same coach who was giggling at the end of the game...What? Show some heart. Jabari Parker alone shows more heart than our entire team and coaching staff combined.

 

[swish7]

I have no idea how far coaches can bring players vs.what percentage is on them.

This is a good question. Maybe CoachOrange can respond.

Becoming a better player is most definitely a mix of both player and coach responsibility. it would be stupid to assign a percentage, but let's do it anyway. Let's say it is 65% on the player, and 35% on the coach. The ascension of an Etan Thomas, or an AO, or a Rick Jackson, is probably more about them than it is about Boeheim or Fine.

It's probably not much different than learning how to read. The kid has to want it. The teacher has to know how to teach it. To become elite, the kid has to have a foundation, an aptitude, a drive, and an environment in which to succeed. The teacher needs to know what they are doing, be organized, help the kid identify and set milestones.

Becoming a better team is on both as well. However, I'd inverse the percentages. It's 45% on the individuals and 55% on the coach. The coach sets the tone. He/she recruits the individuals. The individuals in turn have to respond, and accept the team concept. Average emotional leaders, like a Shumpert, cannot overcome the distractions caused by a Me-shaun. However, when you have competitors like GMac, Melo, and Kueth, and willing role players like Forth, Pace, and to a lesser extent Edelin, you have a perfect storm of success.

My experience is limited to being coached in HS, and briefly in DIII, then coaching about 4 of my kid's teams. I'll say this, great players make you look like a better coach. Average players make you look like an average coach. Bad eggs are incredibly, incredibly hard to manage, and can drag the whole team down. Selfish players can drag the whole team down. Not having a plan, not being organized, not sticking to your plan or philosophy, not being adaptive, essentially not knowing what you are doing and where you are going, will limit development. Skimping on your long term plan for short term success lengthens the time it takes to reach your long term goals. You have to know what you are doing. Some kids already need to know what they are doing, so they can lead by example. The others have to accept being part of a team, a diminished role in some cases, and do what you ask to get better.

It's dynamic and complex. Which is what makes the year-after-year, in-season & post-season successes of a Pitino, Donovan, Izzo, and K so incredible. Their teams always seem to buy into that team concept, play with incredible intensity, and gel as the season progresses. Some of those guys can select whatever recruit they want. However, others are in no better a situation than JB. I think there is something about the system, work ethic, focal points, that these guys teach, that is superior, IMO, than what Boeheim teaches.

I don't agree with some of the JB knocking that is going on in this thread. His success speaks for itself. It would be cheap to over-state his superlatives in his defense. Bottom line, IMO, emphasis on opinion, his players do not play with the same consistent intensity that the players of the guys mentioned above do. It's hard to watch. But to say he is a bad coach is over the line. I may disagree with finer points of his philosophy and approach, but he is one of the all time best at something that I've already stated is really hard to even be average at. He does it a different way, and in the post-season, it occasionally works well. Maybe not K or Izzo or Pitino well, but it works.

 

[OrangeFoo]

This is a good question. Maybe CoachOrange can respond.

It's dynamic and complex. Which is what makes the year-after-year, in-season & post-season successes of a Pitino, Donovan, Izzo, and K so incredible. Their teams always seem to buy into that team concept, play with incredible intensity, and gel as the season progresses. Some of those guys can select whatever recruit they want. However, others are in no better a situation than JB. I think there is something about the system, work ethic, focal points, that these guys teach, that is superior, IMO, than what Boeheim teaches.

Not Coach Orange but I would like to take a stab at responding...

I disagree with the comments around intensity and playing within a team concept. Our team plays with incredible intensity and within a system that 100% relies on playing within a team concept, it just happens to be on defense. How many times have we heard announcers and opposing coaches talk about how the zone moves as one. How many games over the past 5 years or so have we marveled at the intensity of the zone and how we just locked teams down in it? Intensity and playing within a perfect team concept on D carried us to a final four last year when our offense was horrific. I would argue that no coach in the country gets his players to play better within a team concept and with intensity than JB does on D.

Our problem lies on the offensive side. It's tough to play within a team concept when the offense is structured to reward 1 one 1 plays and is reliant on hero plays or as we like to call them "melo sets". If you are Rak or any other big man why do you bother to be intense on O when you know you are not going to see the ball? Why should any player keep running and moving on O when they know the ball will stop on offense. If you are not a designated star player why do you take a chance on O when you know that a bad shot or even a missed good shot will get you yanked when the designated star can chuck up as much junk as they want yet they will not get yanked and they will keep getting the ball.

The other big problem we have with intensity and buying into a team concept is that the star players have zero accountability because they know one the rotation is set JB will not alter it unless his hand is forced by injury. If you don't have to fight for your spot game in game its human nature to relax a bit. And even worse the bench players have zero incentive to play with intensity or within the team concept because they never know if they will play game in and game out and they also know if there is even one slight error (even by one of the star players) they are going to get yanked.

The incredible thing is that JB has been so great at coaching the D that we have been able to overcome the rest of the problems and the years where we catch fire and find a Melo or Dion we are going to be one of the very best teams in the country. The years we don't catch fire on O we are going to be what we are this year, a team that goes as far as our D takes us. The great thing is that college hoops talent and coaching is so bad these days our D alone will make at least a top 25/15 team every year.

The question I have is whether that is good enough given where our program is nationally and the selector status we have achieved. I think until we fix the offensive side of the game we will never reach the status of Michigan State (in the izzo era), Duke and the other blue bloods.

 

[swish7]

I disagree with the comments around intensity and playing within a team concept. Our team plays with incredible intensity and within a system that 100% relies on playing within a team concept, it just happens to be on defense.

Good post. Clearly the majority of the issues lie with the O, as they have all year.

There are two ends of the court and you have to coach both.

Against NCSU, the effort was not their on both ends.

Fixing the O is not as simple as "players hitting their shots". We take bad shots. They are harder to make. We are not in position to rebound. As you mention, we are all about isos. Watch ANY Duke player shoot. They are always set, square, strong.

We may or not lack intensity on O, but we certainly lack purpose, and smarts. It's there, we just get away from it, a lot, especially when we are waiting for Fair to get his.

 

[OrangeFoo]

Good post. Clearly the majority of the issues lie with the O, as they have all year.

There are two ends of the court and you have to coach both.

Against NCSU, the effort was not their on both ends.

Fixing the O is not as simple as "players hitting their shots". We take bad shots. They are harder to make. We are not in position to rebound. As you mention, we are all about isos. Watch ANY Duke player shoot. They are always set, square, strong.

We may or not lack intensity on O, but we certainly lack purpose, and smarts. It's there, we just get away from it, a lot, especially when we are waiting for Fair to get his.

I know this would never happen but I wonder if we need an offensive coordinator. But really it comes down to philosophy... JB believes the best o system is that his best guys are better than the other teams guys and will score enough to keep it close... Once there his D and situational coaching (best in hoops IMHO) will allow him to win more often than not.

I would love to know what Coach Hopkins philosophy is... I wonder if someone will ask maybe before he is handed the keys to the system? One of my favorite coaches is Coach Belein at Michigan because he is such a creative offensive coach and he did a lot with really mediocre talent at WVU. Not surprised he has a top 10 program at Michigan with the resources there. I would love for him to be the next Syracuse head coach given his ties to the area.