Alum1 wrote:

Maybe….just maybe….the team has finally learned that the boat moves more effectively if all the oars are engaged in the same direction. And maybe…..just maybe…..we saw a coach make meaningful adjustments and not worry about signaling ou poor play and selfishness...... .

This also adds the voices making the point.

if-alum1-GWmayhem and me.That’s four.Voices-not voice.I’m not even saying that we are “right”.
For Christ sake can’t you get your facts straight?I clearly need to get a life that I’m even replying to you.
By the way-Just for the hell of it I checked your link to the poll on Tom Crean.You got it wrong as usual.
You said 83 for his dismissal -only 17 to go.It was just the opposite.I think this Covid thing has gotten to me.
I can’t believe I have any energy to respond to this person.

Last edited by GW69 (1/24/2022 8:30 am)

First, GWRising. Nobody is suggesting that execution has no bearing on outcomes.  But what you seem to be suggesting is that in-game coaching has little if any bearing, which is just not correct.  Let's first go back to what started this..one or more posters claiming that this was JC's best coached game of the year.  You are essentially saying that JC is the same guy he always was (true), and the same coach he always was (not true).  Your comment about Giannini is a bit disingenuous.  We both know that JC told him about the motion offense the day before the game (or the morning of the game).  Even if what you're saying is true and that the motion offense began to get installed after the Florida trip, that represents after 8 games of a season where they have now played 17 games, or roughly half of their season played to date.  So let's not say that JC has been the same coach all along because he obviously hasn't.  The "one guy makes a move while the other 4 stand around and watch offense" was infuriating to watch, and JC to his credit fixed it.   (Why we were ever in it to begin with is for another day.)  And again, the URI game saw things that we have not seen very much of...providing an extended bench with meaningful minutes, double teaming the post, putting a bad foul shooter in particularly at the line again and again rather than surrender easy baskets, and allowing Brendan Adams to provide a real spark off of the bench.

It's also insulting to accuse people here of lacking any nuance when analyzing coaching.  The comments I read on this board go well beyond he's a hero if they win and a bum if he loses.  I went back and read the comments after our first game of the season, a narrow win over St. Francis.  Here is a sampling:

"Unintelligent play.  No motion.  Not good."
"Back to our old habits of playing down to the competition."
"A win is a win is a win.  Then again, every weakness this team has was just exposed.  No reason to think that GW can come within 20 points of a ranked opponent."
"We are in trouble inside.  No real offense and teams will be aggressive on the 3 point line until we can get something going."
"A big problem though is that our flaws are glaring and may not be easily swept under a rug."

Again, these were all said after a win.  Similarly, I'm sure I could revisit the Maryland game thread,  a loss, and find plenty of positive and encouraging comments.

So no, you are wrong IMO regarding comments being consistent with outcome.  Instead, comments seem to be consistent with performance.  Play well, even if you lose, and there will not be very many critics.  Play poorly while beating a lesser team by 1-3 points and yes, you'll hear about it here.

 

GW Rising’s point is simple: Every coach in the history of the A10 is and was equally as good as any other  and the only difference is whether the players could execute.  Mike Jarvis was no better if a coach than MoJo or John Keuster, it’s just happenstance that it worked out for MJ but not Keuster.

Gwmayhem wrote:

First, GWRising. Nobody is suggesting that execution has no bearing on outcomes.  But what you seem to be suggesting is that in-game coaching has little if any bearing, which is just not correct.  Let's first go back to what started this..one or more posters claiming that this was JC's best coached game of the year.  You are essentially saying that JC is the same guy he always was (true), and the same coach he always was (not true).  Your comment about Giannini is a bit disingenuous.  We both know that JC told him about the motion offense the day before the game (or the morning of the game).  Even if what you're saying is true and that the motion offense began to get installed after the Florida trip, that represents after 8 games of a season where they have now played 17 games, or roughly half of their season played to date.  So let's not say that JC has been the same coach all along because he obviously hasn't.  The "one guy makes a move while the other 4 stand around and watch offense" was infuriating to watch, and JC to his credit fixed it.   (Why we were ever in it to begin with is for another day.)  And again, the URI game saw things that we have not seen very much of...providing an extended bench with meaningful minutes, double teaming the post, putting a bad foul shooter in particularly at the line again and again rather than surrender easy baskets, and allowing Brendan Adams to provide a real spark off of the bench.

It's also insulting to accuse people here of lacking any nuance when analyzing coaching.  The comments I read on this board go well beyond he's a hero if they win and a bum if he loses.  I went back and read the comments after our first game of the season, a narrow win over St. Francis.  Here is a sampling:

"Unintelligent play.  No motion.  Not good."
"Back to our old habits of playing down to the competition."
"A win is a win is a win.  Then again, every weakness this team has was just exposed.  No reason to think that GW can come within 20 points of a ranked opponent."
"We are in trouble inside.  No real offense and teams will be aggressive on the 3 point line until we can get something going."
"A big problem though is that our flaws are glaring and may not be easily swept under a rug."

Again, these were all said after a win.  Similarly, I'm sure I could revisit the Maryland game thread,  a loss, and find plenty of positive and encouraging comments.

So no, you are wrong IMO regarding comments being consistent with outcome.  Instead, comments seem to be consistent with performance.  Play well, even if you lose, and there will not be very many critics.  Play poorly while beating a lesser team by 1-3 points and yes, you'll hear about it here.

 

Gwmayhem, if you think JC's offense before was "one guy makes a move while the other 4 stand around and watch offense"  then we should stop having this discussion. That is patently absurd. I think a few of you need to attend a practice once in awhile. You might then learn the difference between what was coached and what you saw.

GWrising, I am always willing to listen and learn, so the floor is yours.  Please describe for me what our offense was supposed to be over the first 8 games of this season.  To me, it looked like one guy trying to go one on one (or worse when double and triple teams occurred) while the others looked on.  Sometimes, the ball would make it's way to someone positioned outside the arc, often resulting in a poor shot attempt with the shot clock winding down.  There was a noticeable difference when Brayon came into the game.   There still wasn't very much (if any) movement without the ball but Brayon was successful at drawing multiple defenders and ultimately finding an open man.

That's precisely how it looked to me.  Please tell me what this offense was intended to be. 

There's no doubt that JC can coach. He served as an assistant under a number of great coaches and learned different systems from Emory & Henry to Bucknell to William & Mary to VCU. The fact that he's been able to change schemes during a season suggests he has the basketball knowledge. Everything does fall on him at the end of the day though which I think most on the board is trying to get at (I think pretty much any other fanbase in the A10 would have called JC trash at this point and that's not hyperbole). For the most part, this board has kept standards relatively realistic as to who we are and where we are as a program right now.

What I want to see from JC this offseason is to pick a system, stick with it, and most importantly, recruit to it. Picking "best available player" and trying to form a system around the roster he has hasn't worked in three years and is the reason why I still have no idea what we're building towards. Changing the system midway through the season results in players taking additional time to understand it and slows any progress. I feel like we've run six different systems in three seasons under JC, which includes anything from ball screen/jacking up a ton of threes to dribble handoff to a more motion based scheme (my favorite thus far and has reflected in a surge in team assists recently). It's important to have a few P6 down transfers in the A10, but the rest of the roster needs to be filled out with guys that can play strong complementary roles. Recruit guys who can play off the ball.

If no one on staff knows how to recruit internationally, a change needs need to be made to get someone who has some of those contacts. Not recruiting internationally at GW is a huge failure given what the school has to offer. I appreciate JC's loyalty to his assistants but there needs to be one guy who can do this (the more the better of course). I'm not sure he has more time to continue "building those contacts" from what he said earlier in his tenure as coach. International guys have better fundamentals right off the bat (something this team could really use).

Before the season even started, the roster clearly lacked shooting and frontcourt players with any experience at all. The fact that this wasn't addressed before the season started will always confuse me because it was glaringly obvious when Jamison left and even a guy like Chase (despite what his numbers showed on the stat sheet) left in the frontcourt. Adding one player (Ira) to address the frontcourt wasn't going to resolve the frontcourt issues regardless. I understand that filling so many spots in one offseason is difficult, but it does go back to a lack of understanding as to what an A10-level player looks like - JC's recruiting in year 1 was filled with mostly misses and zero true successes. COVID aside, we shouldn't be close to bottom 50 in the country on offense in year 3.

Gambling that a guy like Joe will suddenly become an efficient shooter with more playing time, Brendan becoming a good shooter after being under 30% from three for his career, or Bishop being more consistent than a streaky shooter was very risky.

Expecting Noel and Hunter to become key pieces backing up Ira when they haven't even played organized basketball for a significant period of time was also very risky (mentioning this based on what JC has said in interviews in the past). There's nothing wrong with taking a developmental piece (it's expected in the A10, we aren't P6), but they can't be primary pieces off the bench right now.

As sad it is to say, I'm not surprised Ricky ended up sidelined with an injury (hope he makes a speedy recovery, knock on wood) based on how hard he's had to fight down low. He's had no help on this roster to keep him fresh. Again Qwanzi is a great deeper piece to have on the roster, but we needed (closer) to a more finished product to back-up Ricky. Averaging 2 ppg at Florida Gulf Coast provides somewhat of an indication of what he could give us moving up to the A10 despite his previous injury history.

If you want to devalue production from the post offensively/not go for offensive rebounds (which is what strikes me as JC's philosophy) then get guards that can shoot more efficiently. If shooting has become devalued a bit, get bigs that can crash the glass and create more opportunities. Right now we have neither which is why the team is where it is today.

It is mostly a recruiting problem. Having said that, JC needs to get the team he has to learn to play together a bit faster than January in the future especially if there's a full offseason to practice. I find it hard to believe that D1 players on this roster forgot how to pass the ball early in the year (again using the eye test we were bottom 10 in the nation bad in passing early on). Part of that may be lack of trust but I don't think it's all of it (WBB despite obvious offensive shortcomings did not have this issue even in game 1 of the season). Additionally, how it took several months to finally play a guy like Knapp who is over 40% for his career from three when Brendan is hoisting 5+ threes a game at a 20% clip and the team is shooting 28-29% from three overall is questionable. While Knapp has some obvious defensive shortcomings, he's made up for it by showing simple fundamentals on both sides of the ball that not many on this roster have. I still hold that even this flawed roster should be better than 6-11. At least it's been nice to see us get more from the roster in the past week.
 

Agreed dmvpiranha. JC's issues have more to do with personnel than x's and o's. The Lee injury changed a lot up front and put more stress of Brown, Dean and Lindo to rebound. I am confident our rebounding numbers would look a whole lot better with Lee in there. 

Lindo has had so far a disappointing season offensively. This has hurt us as well. We needed him to score 14-16 per night to help offset the loss of a guy like Battle. He looked capable of that. Hasn't happened yet.

A related point is we don't have a consistent shooter. Losing Battle was huge. The thought was the trio of Bishop, Adams and Freeman could make up for that. So far they have not. But they are improving.

Joe is so raw. Oozes with talent but is very inconsistent within games. He just needs experience to improve his decision-making.. Love his energy though.

So the problem for JC is from game to game and from half to half, there has not been anyone who has been consistent all season. Hard to figure out who to go to or who has the hot hand.

Hopefully this is all changing.
 

Last edited by GWRising (1/24/2022 1:31 pm)

GWRising wrote:

Without getting into too much detail and difficult to explain in much detail here. Hammer sets. Weave or handoffs into ball screen action. Screen and roll or pop action off the top. JC's offense is somewhat free flowing meaning it depends on reads and options. How does defense guard each screen and how do matchups change if switches etc. It is critical that execution be at a high level. It requires more attention to detail than basic motion principles. Motion more basic but easier to implement and sometimes guys who can make plays thrive in it because by its definition there is more movement and cutters off the ball.

OK, we're going to have to agree to disagree because clearly, you were watching a very different team than I was.  Screen and rolls?  Really, there were a lot of those?  If we can assume for argument sake that Brown and Dean were the ones setting those screens, how often did those guys roll to the basket and catch passes? 

Here's the thing...I noticed early on how stagnant this early season offense looked so I became very conscious of this and began looking to see if it would change.  This is not something I am conjuring up after the fact.  And, this is also not to suggest that some of what you described never happened.  I am saying that the majority of the time, this offense did not resemble anything other than whether it was Bishop's or Bamisile's turn to go one on one (particularly when Brayon was sitting), with the occasional dump out to Brendan for a three point shot.  I purposefully have omitted Ricky because I'm honestly unsure as to what his role may have been on offense.    

Free Quebec wrote:

GWRising wrote:

Free Quebec wrote:

GW Rising’s point is simple: Every coach in the history of the A10 is and was equally as good as any other and the only difference is whether the players could execute. Mike Jarvis was no better if a coach than MoJo or John Keuster, it’s just happenstance that it worked out for MJ but not Keuster.

 My point is in-game coaching is within a range and the range is not as great as some of you would believe. Mainly it comes down to three things:- most of which are decided before you take the floor. Talent, basketball IQ and toughness. Recruiting and identifying talent that can play together is the biggest separator.

No, your point is don’t criticize JC because it’s not his fault that three years in, his team is the least efficient GW of the KenPom era.

I don’t totally disagree with you about in-game coaching, but coaching the players to win is not just recruiting or in-game. There’s designing schemes, teaching schemes, teaching techniques, improving mental toughness and instilling a winning mentality, teaching the players attention to detail(and to execute details fluidly without thinking).

But back to the point - if you are going to respond every time someone criticizes coaching (in game or otherwise) by suggesting the coach he’s zero to do with the team’s struggles because it’s the players fault for not executing or being good enough, then you will have no credibility.

Most of what a coach has to do to put his players in position to succeed happens before the game (and it’s not only recruiting either).

But also “toughness” and “basketball IQ” are totally overrated. They are as overrated as in-game coaching.

Usually those terms are just proxies for how good is someone at basketball - can they make shots? Can they create shots and make contested ones? Can they dribble and pass? Can they disrupt the other team’s offense? Can they rebound in traffic?

Tyler Cavanaugh was said to have a great basketball iq, but really he was just a damn good shooter and a good athlete with tremendous skills. Someone like Francisco DrMiranda likely had just as high a basketball IQ as Tyler, but he wasn’t as athletic and didn’t have the same level of skill.

I'm glad you know what point I was making. Would you care to write the rest of my posts for me too. It would save me a lot of time.

No, I have never said JC is not accountable. In fact I said it several posts before you attempted to tell me what I meant to say. No one said you can't criticize JC. What I did say is there is an outcome determinative aspect to the criticism or praise. I am way more interested in his process of coaching. Sometimes good process doesn't yield good results though.

Toughness matters - it's actually a thing. Independent of skill. Tough minded unflappable kids. You would know that if you coached. Plenty of good shooters out there who the first time you start roughing them a little they disappear. Others don't seem to mind - they are tough. Same skill. Different results.

Basketball IQ matters - it's actually a thing. Independent of skill. Plenty of kids who have skill but don't see the court well, make the wrong read, don't understand time and score.

Those terms are not proxies for anything.

Last edited by GWRising (1/24/2022 6:25 pm)