VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Tuesday, January 06, 12:43:44am
Author: figgyprez
Subject: Re: good outings
In reply to: oldtimer#1 's message, "Re: good outings" on Monday, January 05, 11:40:11pm

Agree about driving force, but we used to see guys improve regularly. Remember the strides people like John Krotulis, Kevin Boyle, Alex Roberts and Mark Schrobach made? Now look at recent vintage examples like Kinzey Reeves who could have been the Andrew Bogut of the MAAC and ended being Mel Counts without a shot. Sowell got better no doubt, and I have hope with Costner,but I have been unhappy with the 4 year improvement of many players for at least 8 years. Thus my frustration with Nick. Also it gets old having to count noses in the pregame chippy line to see who is available. Women's program almost never has those problems.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: good outings -- oldtimer#1, Tuesday, January 06, 08:47:06am [1]

figgy, since I agree with almost all of your posts let's just say we can agree to disagree slightly on this one. No big deal but here is my response.


#1) Regarding development. My best guess is that a coaches'/staff's contribution is limited to instruction, drills and playing time. As we both agree the bulk of the responsibility is the individuals work ethic. Extra time in the gym is probably important. Use to see Orta in there a lot working on his shot. I've observed in the few times I've passed by the staff giving extra attention to both Gooding and Costner. Has it worked? Who knows? Perhaps they are doing likewise with other players.


To me player development also means opportunity and playing time. To that extent I would be critical and state that I'd like to see Jack Hill get more time Last year Lampley was given plenty of playing time as the staff showed plenty of patience with an often out of control player. Dunne was quite supportive of Darrell and towards seasons end Darrell was a better and more under control player. Also looked much better in pre-season. Think the staff was developing him well. Was most likely our starting point guard with Hall as a backup and Nick playing #2.


Several posters have also commented that Costner looks better this year as is Bacon. Undoubtedly Ryan is becoming more offensively minded and that is not by accident. Who cannot say that Traore, with all his shortcomings, is not a better player than last year and as Cindy pointed out that Hill is improving each game.


All that said and given my take on player development, I am reluctant to argue that the staff is solely responsible. To me it's just mainly the growth of young players. On the negative side Mumford is not developing but I would argue that he was not a top seven player to begin with. Reid is never used and that puzzles me a bit but I have no insight as to why. Remember the greatest coach and teacher of all (in my opinion) ,John Wooden, is said to have only instructed his first seven players. Interesting


#2) Now on to Nick Leon. You know that I am going to defend the guy because I like his overall game. What follows is my bias but evaluate the comments not the bias. No doubt Nick is not a great point guard (more of a #2 or combo). He also turns the ball over more than you or I would like. However, I would argue that no player, especially at this level, has the whole package. Nick main attributes are as a scorer and to some extent leader. All the players like playing with him. He's unselfish and supportive of his teammates.Excellent court chemistry with almost every teammate. They all like playing with him.


In terms of improvement/development last year both Nick and Darrell were constantly trapped and often lost the ball just over mid-court. This year, and I have attended all home and several away games, I have not seen Nick trapped once. A definite improvement.


In terms of turnovers, you are correct. Nick is muck like Akheem in that he often tries to do too much and gets ahead of himself. Wish he could temper that but I also realize that he is a creator and scorer. Wesley Jenkins, by the way, also has that tendency. Check out Wesley's assist/turnover ratio. Think it's part of their package.


In any event, to compare Nick to Hall in terms of assists/turnovers is not fair to either. They are different types of ballplayers. I would not say that Hall is even a better ballhandler than Nick. Both rarely have their pockets picked. Where they differ is that Hall is what I call a safe, under control player. Most of his assists this year are off routine plays. This is no knock but I rarely have seen the interior pass to Bacon from Hall. Nick, on the other hand, constantly forces the issues. I have seen him throw several spectacular passes this year and I have also seen some that are totally out of control. Problem is that while we get frustrated with Nick and Akheem IMO we need that type of player to shake things up.



I say all the above realzing that you have a different point of view which I accept.Nick's positives far outweigh his negatives. Whether he deserves to be a starter or not on a top level team is questionable but he deserves significant playing time and, if truth be told, is contributing as much to date as any of our players including Wesley.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Plea for Sanity -- loyal, Tuesday, January 06, 11:05:56am [1]

Please don't use John Wooden and Coach Dunne in the same sentence, paragraph or post.

Thank you.

Now, if we only had a Sam Gilbert.......

:>)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Plea for Sanity -- oldtimer#1, Tuesday, January 06, 12:32:38pm [1]

figgy, I totally agree with your assessment. My only problem is if Hall doesn't develop then I'd much rather have Nick on the court. At this stage of their development Nick contributes far more. Remember, like everyone else he is just a sophomore, even though he
was red-shirted, for lack of a better term. Interesting also that we never take Wesley to task. Now I think as highly of him as most but he has had several very poor games (excuses aside) to go with his one oustanding game against Cansius. His assist turnover ratio is slighly worse than Nick's and their shooting percentages over the last year and a half are quite similar. I understand the pressure that both he and Nick are under, both being given special attention on defense. Bottom line is that I really like Wesley, Ryan and Nick,and am hoping for Hall and Hill's development. As posted. I see Gooding and Costner as valuable role players and have seen enough of Conley to understand that he will help big time. Like you I am waiting for that shooting/scoring #3 that we obviously lack. Love to see Hall develop and Nick be a backup point or sub for Wesley. Right now, that's just not the case.


To Loyal, while I appreciate most of your posts I hope you don't fall into that wise-guy attitude of taking unnecessary shots. There was obviously no intention to compare Dunne to Wooden. For your clearer understanding the point was that some coaches don't devote as much time to all their players while others do. It is my observation, at least in those sessions I observed, that JD attempts to give equal instruction and attention to all. I'll let you and other "experts" opine how sussessful that has been.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Plea for Sanity -- loyal, Tuesday, January 06, 01:27:56pm [1]

Wooden/Dunne comment was an attempt at "gallows humor"....not taking a potshot.

You are absolutely right: Leon is much more effective than Hall right now. It's not an easy decision, but if I were Dunne, I'd find minutes for Hall and Hill this season, at the expense of results. Why? Because whether we win 3 or 5 MAAC games this season is far less important than seeing if:

1. Hall can be our PG.
2. Hill can be a valuable part of a 7/8 man rotation.

The first issue is critical for Dunne, and for all of us intending to watch the club for the rest of Dunne's tenure.

I'll stick with my assessment....if Hall can't cut it at the point by next season, Dunne's tenure here is toast....because this roster can't possibly get it done and even if Conley and (?) hit the ground running (a big if) the absence of a solid point will seriously impede the progress THIS roster can make....not enough others can handle, even minimally.

On the other hand, if Hall outplays his recruiting pedigree and can be a good MAAC point, it will help this team immeasurably. We won't find that out with him on the bench.....I'd gladly forsake a meaningless win or two for the sake of the "big picture".


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Plea for Sanity -- oldtimer#1, Tuesday, January 06, 02:16:58pm [1]

No problem, loyal. Good post. My only point of disagreement is that next year's performance will depend more on how Conley pans out and if we can get that shooting stud that you have been talking about at the #3.

If that's occurs, either Hall or Leon will be good enough I'll stick my neck out and predict that if those two things happen , we will be more than competitive.

Finally my position on JD is quite simple. You will have no argument from me that he has not gotten the job done. I have no idea if he will. However, I do object to those one sided evaluations that the guy does nothing right. Not referring to you in that comment. We do have some objective fans such as SPC Fan who calls it both ways. He criticizes Dunne when appropriate but posted accurately that JD out coached Gonzales in the Seton Hall game. As far as I'm concerned all this is moot. The guy has a contract and I'm sure feels much more pressure than all of us frustrated fans. If we had the players I venture that you, I or most could coach a team. Definitely not the preferred senario but the point is that having the players helps make the coach. Sorry to use Wooden again, but one of his quotes that I like is that many coaches can coach good players but only great coaches can coach great players. I like that analysis.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: good outings -- figgyprez, Tuesday, January 06, 11:10:49am [1]

I excluded the new guys because I don't think it is fair to judge growth based on 14 games. But the others have had a full season and an off season at least to add dimensions to their game. I have said before I think Nick is a good back up on a good team so he may be being asked to do more than he will ever be capaable of. It kind of goes back to something I said earlier- we need a wing shooter and help for Bacon and Conley to get Gooding in an off the bench energy or shut down defender role, allow Jenkins to be just a 2guard, make Hall the clear general at point, let Nick fill in at both. Costner and (you're right) the improving Hill can then have clear roles off the bench at 3 or 4. I still don't love the point situation in any case, but wing and big are more essential holes right now.


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.