Who is the most overrated coach in the country? | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Who is the most overrated coach in the country?

And I didn't mean fair because it was Dean Smith, I meant the overall time you quoted - Roy's time at UNC. I was just trying to say you have to consider his whole time at Kansas and UNC to compare to Coach Smith.

Ah, ok. Like I said, I wasn't trying to compare Roy to Dean, and since the original comment I was responding to was about how anyone could win a title at UNC, I only mentioned his UNC period.

I still consider Roy to only have one title. The first one is Dougherty's or however you spell that.

Doherty. Yeah, he did recruit most of those guys (I guess other than Marvin Williams) you still have to coach them up. (See Barnes, Rick).

Also, we like to mention how JB might have another title if AO didn't get hurt; Roy could easily have another one if Marshall didn't break his wrist.
 
Ah, ok. Like I said, I wasn't trying to compare Roy to Dean, and since the original comment I was responding to was about how anyone could win a title at UNC, I only mentioned his UNC period.



Doherty. Yeah, he did recruit most of those guys (I guess other than Marvin Williams) you still have to coach them up. (See Barnes, Rick).

Also, we like to mention how JB might have another title if AO didn't get hurt; Roy could easily have another one if Marshall didn't break his wrist.
Would have loved to see us with Fab vs. UNC with Marshall.
 
They need to do a poll for the dirtiest coach in the country. Our boy down at Kentucky would be No. 1 on that list.
 
Would have loved to see us with Fab vs. UNC with Marshall.

That would've been the semi final, right?

I still remember in 03 how impressed I was with our transition defense in the championship game.
 
Ah, ok. Like I said, I wasn't trying to compare Roy to Dean, and since the original comment I was responding to was about how anyone could win a title at UNC, I only mentioned his UNC period.



Doherty. Yeah, he did recruit most of those guys (I guess other than Marvin Williams) you still have to coach them up. (See Barnes, Rick).

Also, we like to mention how JB might have another title if AO didn't get hurt; Roy could easily have another one if Marshall didn't break his wrist.


and even another one if wayne simien doesnt get hurt...:eek:


this post would get about 50 dislikes if that was an option
 
and even another one if wayne simien doesnt get hurt...:eek:


this post would get about 50 dislikes if that was an option
And don't forget, all of those missed free throws!

(Which Kansas fans conveniently forget led to more points off of offensive rebounds than they would have gotten had they made those free throws)
 
And don't forget, all of those missed free throws!

(Which Kansas fans conveniently forget led to more points off of offensive rebounds than they would have gotten had they made those free throws)

Yeah I can't remember if I did the work myself or read it here, but they got a ton of offensive boards off the missed FT. Might've been their best offense for a while.
 
I've always found it amusing that Roy Williams get stuck with the "overrated" or "just a recruiter" label.

His career winning percentage is .800. What do his detractors think his winning percentage would be if he could actually coach. .850? .900?
 
When I think overrated coaches, I always picture Quinn Snyder and Digger.
 
How is John Thompson not on there, he coaches an offense that he specifically designs to be ineffective.
 
I've always found it amusing that Roy Williams get stuck with the "overrated" or "just a recruiter" label.

His career winning percentage is .800. What do his detractors think his winning percentage would be if he could actually coach. .850? .900?
The problem is, Roy has had the better players on the court more than 80% of the time.
 
How is John Thompson not on there, he coaches an offense that he specifically designs to be ineffective.

I was waiting for someone to mention Mr. Potatohead.
He should be a unanimous selection here.
May he have the winless season he deserves.

I LOOOOOOOAAATHE G-town!

GO ORANGE!
 
Most underated- JB. Go Orange!
 
The problem is, Roy has had the better players on the court more than 80% of the time.

And I bet John Wooden had the better players on the court more than 80% of the time, and he won 80% of his games also.

(I hope it goes without saying that I'm not implying Williams is as good as Wooden)
 
And I bet John Wooden had the better players on the court more than 80% of the time, and he won 80% of his games also.

(I hope it goes without saying that I'm not implying Williams is as good as Wooden)

I would think that wooden would have a lot of trouble competing in the modern era when 100+ programs have the desire and resources to win.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
 
And I bet John Wooden had the better players on the court more than 80% of the time, and he won 80% of his games also.

(I hope it goes without saying that I'm not implying Williams is as good as Wooden)
From 1963 forward (the point at which UCLA entered the "elite" group), Wooden won more than 93% of his games. (And 8 of his 22 losses were in a single season.)

Another way to look at this is by referring to what Bum Phillips was reported to have said about Don Shula--"He can take his'n and beat your'n; and he can take your'n and beat his'n".

Roy is a good recruiter--don't know if he's great, because both KU and UNC practically recruit by themselves. And we don't know how good he is on the sideline, because he almost always has the better collection of talent on the court.
 
I would think that wooden would have a lot of trouble competing in the modern era when 100+ programs have the desire and resources to win.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

What Wooden would have trouble with would be the lack of discipline and work ethic in many of todays players who try to get by on superior physical ability. Wooden may have had great players, but his attention to detail and fundamentals made most of those players even better. He was innovative in his approach to practices and what and how he taught the game of basketball. Many coaches followed his ways, but Wooden was so disciplined and patient to let his methods succeed, that many who tried/try to emulate him don't have the patience or discipline to allow those methods to work. Wooden wasn't so rigid as to not be able to adapt to the game, but rigid in that he didn't deviate from his methods.

Wooden could go back to any of his practices in his career and pull out the practice plan and show you what he worked on that day. His practices consisted largely of drills working fundamentals (help and recover, cutting off baseline, boxing out, outlet passess, running the break, v-cut to get open, getting an angle for an entry pass, dribbling, passing etc...) . The fundamentals learned in these specific drills were all parts of the bigger piece, playing the game. His philosophy was that if you didn't learn these basic fundamentals you would have a hard time playing the game. And he was right. The lack of basic fundamentals at the modified level and even much of the high school varsity level is staggering, the fundamentals just aren't getting stressed and the younger levels (its more about physical ability and kids jacking 3's). Watch a modified game and see how many layups get missed with the strong hand, let alone kids even attempting to shoot a layup with their weak hand.

Fortunately I played in a grammar school program in the 70's with a coach that was a Wooden disciple who taught the fundamentals and stressed them in practice with the same kind of drills Wooden used. If you didn't learn how to play fundamentally sound you wouldn't play, let alone make the team. We rarely lost even at the varsity level, and not because we had superior athletes we didn't but we were superior basketball players fundamentally.

The other thing about Wooden was his competitiveness, what alot off people I talk to don't realize was that he was an All-American in college and was a player of the year.

Would Wooden win like he did in the 60's and 70's, probably not but he would still be a successful coach and one of the best in any era.
 
This is a coaches vote.

  1. Roy Williams (North Carolina): 23 percent
  2. Rick Barnes (Texas): 17 percent
  3. Scott Drew (Baylor): 11 percent
  4. Steve Lavin (St. John's): 9 percent
  5. Jay Wright (Villanova): 6 percent
  6. Ben Howland (UCLA): 6 percent
  7. Jim Boeheim (Syracuse): 4 percent
  8. Tommy Amaker (Harvard): 4 percent
Also received votes: Too many to list.


cbssports
Apparently making the final 4 multible times isn't valued much. You should print the underrated list. Some on that list made the FF too. Like Calipairi.
 
From 1963 forward (the point at which UCLA entered the "elite" group), Wooden won more than 93% of his games. (And 8 of his 22 losses were in a single season.)

Damn. That's pretty impressive.

Another way to look at this is by referring to what Bum Phillips was reported to have said about Don Shula--"He can take his'n and beat your'n; and he can take your'n and beat his'n".

Among current coaches, I kinda think of Bo Ryan this year. Guy seems like a great teacher; h e doesn't recruit the top players but he knows what kind of players he wants.
 
I still consider Roy to only have one title. The first one is Dougherty's or however you spell that.

If Doherty hadn't lost 15 games with those same players and gotten fired, maybe it would've been his title.
 
The problem is, Roy has had the better players on the court more than 80% of the time.

In that vein, how often does Boeheim (or any elite coach) have the best players on the court?

By that measure, Jamie Dixon would be the best coach of them all, coaxing a .756 record out of players who are more talented than probably only about 60% of their opponents.
 
Any list that calls a guy with two NCs and a whole bunch of FFs overrated is a dumb list.

I don't think it is necesarily - it depends how much you consider recruiting as part of coaching. I think people can make perfectly rational arguments that some coach isn't great in games, but recruits much better and as a result achieves better results.

If you have top 5 talent EVERY year, but only make the FF once every 5 years - is that overrated? I don't know, considering it's a one and done tourney and very difficult to survive (unless you're Duke and they pave the way :) ), it probably isn't, but if you watch the guy coach and have an informed opinion it may have some validity in spite of that success - 2 NC's and a bunch of FF's.

Joe Torre was the losingest manager in baseball history until he had a $200M payroll - now he's regarded as an all-time great manager. Is he overrated now? Circumstances matter. If Phil Jackson got a job in Minnesota instead of the Bulls he might be a nobody to this day - who really knows. I'm sure plenty of people would argue he would have made it regardless, and just as many would argue he would have floundered. If you're in the latter group you would probably argue he's overrated in spite of his billion titles because he always had far superior talent on the floor. It's a fine line.
 
I've always found it amusing that Roy Williams get stuck with the "overrated" or "just a recruiter" label.

His career winning percentage is .800. What do his detractors think his winning percentage would be if he could actually coach. .850? .900?

So... 80% of the time, Roy wins every time. Nice.
 

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Threads
169,447
Messages
4,831,818
Members
5,977
Latest member
newmom4503

Online statistics

Members online
244
Guests online
1,519
Total visitors
1,763


...
Top Bottom