Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41
  1. #1
    Starter
    Points: 25,450, Level: 48
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 100
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    HuddleUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    613
    Points
    25,450
    Level
    48
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Good coaching vs. good players

    First off, let me say that I think Fred will become a good coach... a really good coach... in time. He's learning on the job, like all of us did when we first started our careers. Think about how much more you know now compared to your first or second year on the job.

    I do think that coaching can be a little overrated. Frank Martin. Mike Anderson. John Calipari. Even throw in Bill Self and Roy Williams. There are many others. None of them are considered "great" coaches. What they do very well, is recruit talented, competitive players that play their system well.

    I have total confidence that Fred will have the same influence once he gets his players in here and develops them in his own way. He's proven in a short time that he's getting some good players. The only concern I do have, is the type of game he's wanting. He likes to get up and the floor... which is great. The defense has been talked to death. We all remember the type of player he was and how hard he played on the defensive end. You know he took something from Floyd and his passion for defensive-minded teams. I think you kind of have to throw this year and last year out. Both are in a way anomalies.



  2. #2
    Speechless
    Points: 736,909, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranCreated Album pictures50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    Cyclonepride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    A pineapple under the sea
    Posts
    48,021
    Points
    736,909
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,574
    Given: 751

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    Quote Originally Posted by HuddleUp View Post
    First off, let me say that I think Fred will become a good coach... a really good coach... in time. He's learning on the job, like all of us did when we first started our careers. Think about how much more you know now compared to your first or second year on the job.

    I do think that coaching can be a little overrated. Frank Martin. Mike Anderson. John Calipari. Even throw in Bill Self and Roy Williams. There are many others. None of them are considered "great" coaches. What they do very well, is recruit talented, competitive players that play their system well.

    I have total confidence that Fred will have the same influence once he gets his players in here and develops them in his own way. He's proven in a short time that he's getting some good players. The only concern I do have, is the type of game he's wanting. He likes to get up and the floor... which is great. The defense has been talked to death. We all remember the type of player he was and how hard he played on the defensive end. You know he took something from Floyd and his passion for defensive-minded teams. I think you kind of have to throw this year and last year out. Both are in a way anomalies.
    Yeah, Freddie will be fine. He probably took something from Floyd, but also from Johnny. I'd like to see a mix the of rebounding and defensive intensity of Floyd with the offensive fireworks of Johnny. Let's just make that happen, shall we?



  3. #3
    Addict
    Points: 96,566, Level: 96
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 484
    Overall activity: 26.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    acgclone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6,925
    Points
    96,566
    Level
    96
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 374
    Given: 68

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    I think right now our problems are 50/50 coaching/talent. I think the talent isn't as good as a lot of people want to think. I also think Fred has some things that he needs to get better at.

    I think he will, but this year will be the growing pains year. I also think that next year RW and Percy will be better developed and give us a bigger presence in the paint with actual post moves.

    Add in a true PG (Lucious) and I think Clyburn for Allen/Scotty will be a push, since Allen and Scotty really play the same position anyway.



  4. #4
    Rookie
    Points: 6,483, Level: 23
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 5.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cedar Rapids
    Posts
    402
    Points
    6,483
    Level
    23
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 118
    Given: 115

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    Quote Originally Posted by HuddleUp View Post
    I do think that coaching can be a little overrated. Frank Martin. Mike Anderson. John Calipari. Even throw in Bill Self and Roy Williams. There are many others. None of them are considered "great" coaches. What they do very well, is recruit talented, competitive players that play their system well.
    Wayne Morgan was a good recruiter and got decent talent here and had underachieving teams.



  5. #5
    Pro
    Points: 68,462, Level: 81
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 1,288
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    3,286
    Points
    68,462
    Level
    81
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 71
    Given: 2

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    Good players are better than good coaching, however bad coaching will take down good players.



  6. #6
    Starter
    Points: 14,721, Level: 36
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 129
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    694
    Points
    14,721
    Level
    36
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 39
    Given: 62

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    First of all, no reason to throw out this year. There's plenty of basketball left to be played. Maybe the NCAA tournament is a stretch now, but the team still has plenty of room to grow and succeed.

    Second, I largely agree with you. A huge part, if not the most important part, of coaching is recruiting, and Fred has already proven he can do that well. Fred's a smart, hard working guy, and there's little doubt in my mind that he will get better at in game coaching as time goes. I think people have to remember he has NEVER coached at any level, ever. Division I head basketball coach is not the kind of position that people usually use to do on the job training, but unfortunately that is the position we are in. The program is heading in the right direction, and we just need to exercise some patience.



  7. #7
    Pro
    Points: 43,652, Level: 64
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 598
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,986
    Points
    43,652
    Level
    64
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 65
    Given: 0

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    Quote Originally Posted by HuddleUp View Post
    First off, let me say that I think Fred will become a good coach... a really good coach... in time. He's learning on the job, like all of us did when we first started our careers. Think about how much more you know now compared to your first or second year on the job.

    I do think that coaching can be a little overrated. Frank Martin. Mike Anderson. John Calipari. Even throw in Bill Self and Roy Williams. There are many others. None of them are considered "great" coaches. What they do very well, is recruit talented, competitive players that play their system well.

    I have total confidence that Fred will have the same influence once he gets his players in here and develops them in his own way. He's proven in a short time that he's getting some good players. The only concern I do have, is the type of game he's wanting. He likes to get up and the floor... which is great. The defense has been talked to death. We all remember the type of player he was and how hard he played on the defensive end. You know he took something from Floyd and his passion for defensive-minded teams. I think you kind of have to throw this year and last year out. Both are in a way anomalies.
    Ok first of all, Martin and Anderson may be good coaches, but Self Calipari and Williams are all great coaches. Just because you have talent on the team doesn't mean you are going to win. You have to be able to coach the talent and get them to play together.


    "But you know that old thing, live fast, die young? Not my way. Live fast, sure, live too bloody fast sometimes, but die young? Die old. That's the way- not orthodox, I don't live by "the rules" you know." - David Brent

  8. #8
    Hall-Of-Famer
    Points: 81,762, Level: 88
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 188
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    gogagig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,816
    Points
    81,762
    Level
    88
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 214
    Given: 63

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    For the most part, I agree with what you say. But I don't think you should be "learning" on a $800k job. You have to come in ready from day 1. I hope this season and last are indicative of the building process rather than the learning process.



  9. #9
    Addict
    Points: 96,566, Level: 96
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 484
    Overall activity: 26.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    acgclone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6,925
    Points
    96,566
    Level
    96
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 374
    Given: 68

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    Quote Originally Posted by gogagig View Post
    For the most part, I agree with what you say. But I don't think you should be "learning" on a $800k job. You have to come in ready from day 1. I hope this season and last are indicative of the building process rather than the learning process.
    That's not Fred's fault. We all knew that he had ZERO coaching experience on Day 1. That is something that needs rest on Pollard's shoulders if in fact, Hoiberg doesn't work out here.

    The bottom line is that Fred is our coach. We are in year 2 of a 4-5 year experiment. He now has some experience and must continue to get better from game to game.

    Also, there can be some advantages to not having experience. He doesn't bring old habits. He probably relates to the players far more than most coaches. His style of play will probably be pretty flexible. These are some of the reasons that will allow him to be a pretty good recruiter. Now we just need to see that recruiting and improvement in coaching translate to wins on the court.



  10. #10
    Addict
    Points: 178,639, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    clonedude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    7,053
    Points
    178,639
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 305
    Given: 0

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    Quote Originally Posted by acgclone View Post
    I think right now our problems are 50/50 coaching/talent. I think the talent isn't as good as a lot of people want to think. I also think Fred has some things that he needs to get better at.

    I think he will, but this year will be the growing pains year. I also think that next year RW and Percy will be better developed and give us a bigger presence in the paint with actual post moves.

    Add in a true PG (Lucious) and I think Clyburn for Allen/Scotty will be a push, since Allen and Scotty really play the same position anyway.
    I think this is pretty accurate. I believe Fred "could" end up being a great coach. He's already a great recruiter IMO. He seems to still have a lot to learn on the coaching part though. He's been outcoached IMO in several games already this year. And maybe he knows all the X's and O's, but if so, he sure isn't getting it through to the team yet. And that's on him too.

    As far as the players go, I think we all WAY over-estimated how "talented" they were. Babb didn't do a whole lot at Penn State. Royce never really played at all at Minny. Allen was a role player at MSU. And Booker averaged 9 pts a game, or something like that, in the Missouri Valley.

    Babb and Allen can light it up when they are open, I will give them that. Booker hasn't shown much at all yet, except he is a decent banger for us at times. And Royce... well... he puts up some decent stats off of his 270 lb frame alone, but he is EXTREMELY limited offensively IMO. He has shown no post moves with his back to the basket whatsoever. He can break his man down off the dribble when facing the basket, but never with his back to the basket in the post. And he has no jump shot whatsoever. So he's fairly easy to guard down low, unless he just bull rushes over you and the refs don't call anything.

    Everyone keeps saying how "talented" we are. Everyone says we have so much more "talent" than UNI does. I'm not certain I agree with that. It all depends on your definition of "talent". Talent isn't talent if it isn't used. If Jerry Rice didn't run crisp routes to get open, or go at 100% all the time, or concentrate solely on the football when catching it, and therefore put up half the numbers that he did, then would he still have been considered as "talented" as he is now? We might have "potential" talent on this team, but we don't have "actual" talent yet IMO.

    UNI was a LOT more "talented" than us the other night by my definition. They outplayed us in nearly every aspect, both as a team and individually. So we can sit here and say stupid things like "but we have a lot more talent than UNI" all we want to, but unless that potential talent is realized and actually shown on the court, then it doesn't exist in my eyes.

    You can throw 5 of the best NBA players together, but if they all stand around, throw lazy passes, don't block out, play with no passion, etc.... then they would get beat and they wouldn't look very "talented". The level of basketball fundamentals displayed in the UNI game the other night was a night and day difference.... UNI had them, and we didn't at all. So you can say we have more "talent", but until I see it, I don't believe it.



  11. #11
    Addict
    Points: 114,117, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    madcityCY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    5,793
    Points
    114,117
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 110
    Given: 218

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    I'm of the thought that we have a LOT of talent on this team - just maybe not in the right areas. To over-simplify, we have four tremendous shooting guards and a highly athletic, strong post, with a unique skill set, but needs to learn some traditional post fundamentals.

    We have a young coach with a lot to learn. As much as the fanbase can want success in year two, we must be patient.



  12. #12
    Pro
    Points: 58,461, Level: 74
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 89
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    jahfg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ames
    Posts
    2,722
    Points
    58,461
    Level
    74
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 30
    Given: 19

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    clonedude, talent as the term is used today, refers to natural ability. So you really think UNI had as much natural ability as ISU? They were more disciplined and have a better feel for the game. Tuttle would never be able to do what Royce did in the first half on the steal, dunk, and and 1. He can, however, learn fundamental post play and get his man in the air. That's not talent, that is fundamentals. I don't think you understand how the term talent is used today.


    I don't bring my own opinions, just attack others.

  13. #13
    Addict
    Points: 178,639, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    clonedude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    7,053
    Points
    178,639
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 305
    Given: 0

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    Quote Originally Posted by jahfg View Post
    clonedude, talent as the term is used today, refers to natural ability. So you really think UNI had as much natural ability as ISU? They were more disciplined and have a better feel for the game. Tuttle would never be able to do what Royce did in the first half on the steal, dunk, and and 1. He can, however, learn fundamental post play and get his man in the air. That's not talent, that is fundamentals. I don't think you understand how the term talent is used today.
    Tuttle would be a LOT harder to guard on the post IMO. He had a lot of great post moves that he schooled Royce with.

    Like I said, it all depends on your definition of "talent". It's obvious from my point of view that Tuttle has worked extremely hard on his post game. It's a LOT better than Royce's. Royce though can dribble the ball 10 times better than Tuttle ever could. And Royce probably is a better passer too. But if Royce had Tuttle's post game, he'd be unstoppable.

    UNI got wide open looks from the 3 pt line all night on us by playing good sound fundamental basketball. They screened, they moved without the ball, and they made crisp passes right on target. We stood around, didn't move without the ball, made lazy passes, and therefore never had wide open looks from 3. Therefore, their 3 pt shots went in, and ours didn't. And yet some on here still like to make the claim.... "if we only shot better from 3, we would have won.". That's much too simplistic of thinking IMO. We shot poorly because we had a hand in our face every single time. They shot better because they didn't. Pretty simple. We won't shoot well unless we do the things necessary to get open looks.

    I just think "talent" is a tough thing to get a handle on. I think there's "talent" and then there's "basketball talent". "Basketball talent" will win 8 times out of 10 against just pure "talent" IMO. Some players just have really high basketball IQ's and are extremely scrappy and hustle. That can overcome a lot. It will beat a super athletic kid that can jump through the ceiling on most nights if the super athletic kid has a low basketball IQ and doesn't hustle on every play.

    And if the so-called more "talented" player never shows his talent, does it really exist? If Michael Jordan just stood around, didn't move without the ball, didn't get crisp good passes, was never open for a shot, etc... would we consider him "talented"? If you don't use it, then it doesn't exist IMO. What good is it?

    Maybe Royce White has all kinds of fantastic post moves? But if he never uses them, he might as well not have them, right? What if our guys can all make pinpoint crisp passes and can move really well without the ball and play great defense, but they never do? Then what good is it?



  14. #14
    Addict
    Points: 114,117, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    madcityCY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    5,793
    Points
    114,117
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 110
    Given: 218

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    Quote Originally Posted by clonedude View Post
    Tuttle would be a LOT harder to guard on the post IMO. He had a lot of great post moves that he schooled Royce with.

    Like I said, it all depends on your definition of "talent". It's obvious from my point of view that Tuttle has worked extremely hard on his post game. It's a LOT better than Royce's. Royce though can dribble the ball 10 times better than Tuttle ever could. And Royce probably is a better passer too. But if Royce had Tuttle's post game, he'd be unstoppable.

    UNI got wide open looks from the 3 pt line all night on us by playing good sound fundamental basketball. They screened, they moved without the ball, and they made crisp passes right on target. We stood around, didn't move without the ball, made lazy passes, and therefore never had wide open looks from 3. Therefore, their 3 pt shots went in, and ours didn't. And yet some on here still like to make the claim.... "if we only shot better from 3, we would have won.". That's much too simplistic of thinking IMO. We shot poorly because we had a hand in our face every single time. They shot better because they didn't. Pretty simple. We won't shoot well unless we do the things necessary to get open looks.

    I just think "talent" is a tough thing to get a handle on. I think there's "talent" and then there's "basketball talent". "Basketball talent" will win 8 times out of 10 against just pure "talent" IMO. Some players just have really high basketball IQ's and are extremely scrappy and hustle. That can overcome a lot. It will beat a super athletic kid that can jump through the ceiling on most nights if the super athletic kid has a low basketball IQ and doesn't hustle on every play.

    And if the so-called more "talented" player never shows his talent, does it really exist? If Michael Jordan just stood around, didn't move without the ball, didn't get crisp good passes, was never open for a shot, etc... would we consider him "talented"? If you don't use it, then it doesn't exist IMO. What good is it?

    Maybe Royce White has all kinds of fantastic post moves? But if he never uses them, he might as well not have them, right? What if our guys can all make pinpoint crisp passes and can move really well without the ball and play great defense, but they never do? Then what good is it?
    You lost me at "talent" vs. "basketball talent". I have some "talent". I DO NOT have "basketball talent". So.... ?



  15. #15
    Pro
    Points: 55,556, Level: 73
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 1,494
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Yes13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,293
    Points
    55,556
    Level
    73
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1
    Given: 1

    Re: Good coaching vs. good players

    UNI played very comparable to ISU football vs. OSU. Everyone on ISU (football) and UNI (basketball) played great, I don't think one guy had a bad game. OSU played okay, not great, just like ISU (basketball) did. OSU is still more talented than us, just like we are more talented than UNI. OSU has a much higher ceiling, just like ISU has a much higher ceiling than UNI.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • TV: TBD
  • Iowa State vs. Oklahoma
  • November 1, 2014
  • 07:00 PM