GWRising wrote:

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.

.

I would be happy to.  It would be fairly easy.

I do agree with you that too much criticism is outcome determinative.  The problem, though, is that you constantly move the goal posts.  When people post criticism not based on the outcome of a single game, but of what they’ve observed over time (2.5 years at this point for the current coach), you usually post that It’s too early to criticize and we should wait to see how the season turns out (meaning, when people don’t base criticism on short term outcome, you call for us to wait for outcome, but when people post criticism after a game you say people are criticizing based on the outcome.). 

As for IQ and toughness, I’m not saying they are not a thing - I’m just saying they are overrated because they are often a proxy for people who think they know basketball, but don’t give enough credit to certain skills (like hall handling, passing, or consistency of shooting motion). It’s like the scene in moneyball where the scout is sating that only scouts understand the intangibles (while ignoring the impact of a critical skill). 

Again, not saying IQ and toughness don’t exist - just that they are overrated in much the way that people overrate coaching evaluations based on outcomes like whether a shot goes in or not, and they are often used to explain things that are better explained by other things.

#25 Davidson is on the horizon

Mentzinger wrote:

Let me put a bow on this discussion.
JC is 23-42 at GW (.354) and has never beaten a Top 25 opponent.

Just for context ...

After 65 games, ML 27-38 and had not beaten a top 25 opponent - did not beat a top 25 team until game 68
After 65 games, KH 30-35 and had not beaten a top 25 opponent - did not beat a top 25 team until game 92

Both of those coaches inherited better situations than JC. Both went on to have success.

Not sure what bow you are trying to tie here.at this point.

Last edited by GWRising (1/25/2022 10:20 am)

danjsport wrote:

I'm not sure how this is a conversation .First, of course this was a great win. Of course both players and coaches deserve credit for it. Of course the other team making mistakes helped. 

When I complain about the coach, I'm not limiting it to gameday, generally. That's just the only place the general public (me included) gets to see everything in action. An 18-3 start for Rhode Island is indicative of bad coaching and bad execution. The team did not appear to come out ready and their initial plans were thwarted. Maybe this was "poor execution," but if the coach can't help the team figure out how to "execute" all week during practice, of course that is both a player and coach issue--particularly as the man recruiting the guys is also the coach. However, when the team turned it around through strategic decisions and better execution, that also shows both good coaching and good execution. 

I'm not sure why this is so complicated.

Here is why I feel it's as complicated as it is.

GWRising takes things from a coach's perspective.  He is a solid backer of JC.  Because others here take the time to point out what they perceive to be deficiencies, Rising becomes very defensive and begins to think that he is the only one who can adequately defend JC, because of the bond they share as coaches.  Everyone else's opinions become diminished because after all, who have we ever coached?

To be fair, there are varying levels of knowledge which come across by those who take the time to criticize.  It's easy to see that the more knowledgeable the fan, the more constructive the criticism is.  Sure, I would dismiss the opinion of the poster who writes nothing more than "JC can't coach.  He sucks."  too.  However, the vast majority here are not like this at all.

I don't believe that Rising chooses to acknowledge any nuance among critical posters.  Simply put, we are all wrong because we've never coached at a high level.  Our opinions, therefore, are construed as worthless.  It's really as simple as that.

The problem, of course, is that it's nowhere near that simple.  Some people make points here which I may disagree with but I nevertheless respect based primarily on the poster and what they've said in the past (or, because their opinion is definitely viable even if I don't agree with it).  Many make points that I either do agree with or which I hadn't considered in the past but are worthy of consideration.  It should also be noted that I have yet to read a criticism of JC which I would perceive as a personal attack.  JC is extremely likeable.  Even joking about his excessive positivity is more an attempt at humor than an attack.

Unfortunately, I predict that to the extent this is really a problem, there is no solution.  Rising is who he is and he's not about to stop now.  He will continue to defend and defend JC whether criticisms are fair or unfair.  It's a reflex to him by now.   

Ironically, how did this most recent kerfuffle start?  Because someone had the nerve to suggest that the URI win was JC's best coached game at GW.  A compliment, not a criticism.  Yet Rising took it to mean that it was no better than many of JC's other coached games, the differences being that this time, we won and the players' execution was better.  The facts are that we did win and the players did execute better.  However, these things are not mutually exclusive from the coaching decisions which went into this victory.  This is not an either/or...either we won due to better execution or we won because of JC's coaching.  We won due to both.

 

Last edited by Gwmayhem (1/25/2022 10:37 am)

Gwmayhem wrote:

danjsport wrote:

I'm not sure how this is a conversation .First, of course this was a great win. Of course both players and coaches deserve credit for it. Of course the other team making mistakes helped. 

When I complain about the coach, I'm not limiting it to gameday, generally. That's just the only place the general public (me included) gets to see everything in action. An 18-3 start for Rhode Island is indicative of bad coaching and bad execution. The team did not appear to come out ready and their initial plans were thwarted. Maybe this was "poor execution," but if the coach can't help the team figure out how to "execute" all week during practice, of course that is both a player and coach issue--particularly as the man recruiting the guys is also the coach. However, when the team turned it around through strategic decisions and better execution, that also shows both good coaching and good execution. 

I'm not sure why this is so complicated.

Here is why I feel it's as complicated as it is.

GWRising takes things from a coach's perspective.  He is a solid backer of JC.  Because others here take the time to point out what they perceive to be deficiencies, Rising becomes very defensive and begins to think that he is the only one who can adequately defend JC, because of the bond they share as coaches.  Everyone else's opinions become diminished because after all, who have we ever coached?

To be fair, there are varying levels of knowledge which come across by those who take the time to criticize.  It's easy to see that the more knowledgeable the fan, the more constructive the criticism is.  Sure, I would dismiss the opinion of the poster who writes nothing more than "JC can't coach.  He sucks."  too.  However, the vast majority here are not like this at all.

I don't believe that Rising chooses to acknowledge any nuance among critical posters.  Simply put, we are all wrong because we've never coached at a high level.  Our opinions, therefore, are construed as worthless.  It's really as simple as that.

The problem, of course, is that it's nowhere near that simple.  Some people make points here which I may disagree with but I nevertheless have respect based primarily on the poster and what they've said in the past (or, because their opinion is definitely viable even if I don't agree with it).  Many make points that I either do agree with or which I hadn't considered in the past but are worthy of consideration.  It should also be noted that I have yet to read a criticism of JC which I would perceive as a personal attack.  JC is extremely likeable.  Even joking about his excessive positivity is more an attempt at humor than an attack.

Unfortunately, I predict that to the extent this is really a problem, there is no solution.  Rising is who he is and he's not about to stop now.  He will continue to defend and defend JC whether criticisms are fair or unfair.  It's a reflex to him by now.   

Ironically, how did this most recent kerfuffle start?  Because someone had the nerve to suggest that the URI win was JC's best coached game at GW.  A compliment, not a criticism.  Yet Rising took it to mean that it was no better than many of JC's other coached games, the differences being that this time, we won and the players' execution was better.

 

Actually not surprisingly I have a different take. 

It's complicated because some here believe JC is not entitled to a defense because they have already determined his ability to coach (or not coach). I get it, people are frustrated with the record and this is a results oriented business. But as I constantly preach here the coach gets far too much blame and far too much credit. Because the record is what it is, we are in a far too much blame mode at the moment. 

But when people make comments like "the offense is four guys standing around while one tries to make a play" does anyone believe that is a serious comment? That's what it may look like to you but do you really think JC who has held three college head coaching jobs coaches that?  C'mon now.

On top of that you have principally one poster who just makes up facts about why players left. So I just assume we should let that go unchallenged.

Is JC a perfect coach? No. Can he improve? Certainly. Is he accountable for what happens? Absolutely. But if we are going to have more than just an emotional reaction here, then at some points facts and information do matter. Some of JC's best coached games have been losses. Games where we didn't shoot well or turned it over. But we had the right scout and the right personnel. Of course, one would come here and the discussion would be all about how JC can't coach. Perhaps I see it from more of technical than emotional lens because that's the way I evaluate coaches. Try not to be a fan as much as an evaluator and things might look at least a little different. 

Last edited by GWRising (1/25/2022 11:05 am)

danjsport wrote:

GWRising wrote:

danjsport wrote:

I'm not sure how this is a conversation .First, of course this was a great win. Of course both players and coaches deserve credit for it. Of course the other team making mistakes helped. 

When I complain about the coach, I'm not limiting it to gameday, generally. That's just the only place the general public (me included) gets to see everything in action. An 18-3 start for Rhode Island is indicative of bad coaching and bad execution. The team did not appear to come out ready and their initial plans were thwarted. Maybe this was "poor execution," but if the coach can't help the team figure out how to "execute" all week during practice, of course that is both a player and coach issue--particularly as the man recruiting the guys is also the coach. However, when the team turned it around through strategic decisions and better execution, that also shows both good coaching and good execution. 

I'm not sure why this is so complicated.

How about we got down 18-3 because we made just one of our first 11 shots and turned the ball over during the first nine plus minutes?

Does the coach bear no responsibility for that? All execution?
 

 Well unless JC instructed them to miss shots or turn the ball over, I would say the lion's share goes to execution - which is why when we started executing, we started turning things around.

Gwmayhem, there are exceptions to everything. Because you found five comments that weren't consistent with the bulk of the comments doesn't invalidate the tenor of the bulk of the comments here after almost every game and even within the games.

GWRising wrote:

Gwmayhem, there are exceptions to everything. Because you found five comments that weren't consistent with the bulk of the comments doesn't invalidate the tenor of the bulk of the comments here after almost every game and even within the games.

GWRising, you are missing my point.  I could have pulled out many more positive posts after the Maryland loss, or many more negative ones after the St. Francis win.  You are claiming that the posters here, in theory, are like sheep.  Win and we post nice things and lose and we post mean things.

What I am saying is that the posts have far more to do with how we played as opposed to whether we won or not.    There have been many wins during JC's GW tenure where his teams have just not played well.  So yes, there are negative comments.  And, these likely outnumber losses during JC's tenure where we played well.  So yes, there has been more negativity but this is a direct result of how the team has looked, from coaching strategies to player execution.  

The Dude wrote:

Road upsets of teams with an over 200 gap KenPom margin this year:

GW.  

 

Now do the offensive and defensive efficiency rankings of A10 teams...

Offense: GW is 14th out of 14 teams
Defense: GW is 13th out of 14 teams

Mojo won 20 games in his first year and was 10-8 in the A10 after the departure of our Core seniors.

10-8 was the same record in league play won by the Core as Seniors +Tyler+Yuta managed the prior season.

Somehow, Mailfan knows better than every single GW Coach how to Coach a team, including ML who he spent 2 years blaming his coaching GW losing.  

GW goes on the road and beats a team 200 spots ahead of it and he's spent 72 hours whining about Coaching, surreal stuff  
 

Last edited by The Dude (1/29/2022 4:25 pm)