On a slow news day I figured I'd chime in on Bullock. I'm not sure why everyone keeps saying he shouldn't be in the team. I've seen a few practices earlier last season and he was fine. Coach had no problem running the ball through him and he has a nice little mid-range jumper. He's a competent ball handler, pretty decent defensively and has pretty good lateral speed for someone his size. Also, he's worked his ass off. He's never going to be skinny, but hes definitely more solid now then when he arrived. What everyone has to realize is that you can't have a team full of starters. When you build a team, you need a collection of players who fill certain needs. One of the hardest things to find are winners. Bullock brings a winning attitude and great work ethic. I think a lot of you will be surprised.
Bullock
- Thread starter ouchmyknee
- Start date
I agree. I liked Matt's game in high school. I hope he can shock some people and be a contributor this coming season.
Matt can be a matchup sub and a physical presence. He has to have a mindset to do the "dirty work", out hustle everyone and use his assets to make the winning plays when he is out there.
Problem is we have a team filled with the latter, we need more of the former. We have a team full of nice complementary players who fill niche rolls. We don't have enough go to guys.
Spot on assessment with the emphasis placed on the dire need for shooters.
Winning teams are full of go to guys and complimentary role players. Losing teams are full of role players who aren't good enough to be go to guys.
He played in a couple of games early, then got hurt. I assume RU is applying for a medical redshirt for him, if they haven't already.
Not really.
There's no "formula" to creating a winning team. Every player fulfills a role on the team. The key is getting those roles to match up a +/- that leads to winning games.
I am a guy with a glass half full mentality...this applies to many RU fans. I was in the Bullock will transfer court. With him still here, I am very optimistic about him. I don't see him as a starter/star but I see him with the Mike Williams mentality. He is a tweener due to size and weight but I see him as a scrapper with ability. He will give all he has while on the court and become a fan favorite because of his effort. I see him diving all over the court, getting rebounds thru sheer determination, and getting his share of points. Looking forward to seeing what he does as a role player.
Kentucky with the one and done star player certainly has been a winning strategy/formula.Other schools with financial resources have hired well known coaches from other schools and that has been a successful strategy/formula.
In Rutgers case they have lacked the fan base,facility and financial resources to successfully compete in a power conference.I guess the formula must be missing.
False.
Starts with coaching. See: Last year with a weaker roster than any Jordan team.
Might want to check our record from last year first. To successfully compete and be a middle of the pack team, the next hurdle is recruiting talent.
Bullock needs to become a different player in college than he was in high school. In high school he was so physically advanced which helped him become a true inside outside player. There was a reason playing at a top program and having his success that he wasn't more highly recruited as he wan't going to step in and play the same way in college against men. But there is also something to be said about players not find a way to be productive and hopefully he is able to be our Adrian Dantley.
There are a lot of programs that win with mediocre coaching.
Sure, and I'm happy for the Mark Gottfried/Billy Gillespie/Lorenzo Romar-type programs that win until recruiting sputters & then they have to fire the coach.
The good coaching/decent recruit model is far more stable.
That's what you Pike doubters don't understand.
Bullock will probably be a solid practice player the next couple years getting limited minutes. His minutes will probably increase junior and senior year, while still not reaching double digits. Will be the type of kid all winning teams need. Hard working, team-first kid, respected by teammates. Receives a great education and goes onto a good career in whatever field he chooses.
Nothing wrong with that career. Hope he stays.
Nothing wrong with that career. Hope he stays.
I'm not sure there was ever a season in the history of seasons that more thoroughly established that it starts with talent than last season. It should be example one of how important talent is. It's almost impossible to miss that lesson.
RU's coaching had a significant uptick. And in what place did RU finish?
Some fans--understandably--were so thoroughly starved for good coaching that they somehow missed that the team finished in last place in a 14 team league with an absolutely abysmal 3-15 record. If that doesn't teach you that you don't get out of the gate without talent, that's a lesson you'll never learn.
Not sure that is totally fair.
In 15-16 we lost 8 games by 25+ points. In 16-17 we lost 1 game by 25+ points. In '15-'16 we lost one of every four games by over 25 points! If I change the number to (just) 24 points, we lost 1 in every 3 games by 24+ points (10 losses in 31 games by 24+).
I understand the goal isn't to "lose by less" but this team was so much better and more competitive in every way possible it isn't that hard to look past the W-L metric in Year 1 for Coach P (and thats with only half an offseason to get ready).
With a full off season and the kids understanding what Coach P wants offensively, defensively and conditioning I think believing this team is on the right path isn't the usual "just being a Rutgers fan blind optimism". I hope I'm right (I think I am).
It is. Totally.
In fact, to respond, you had to shift the question to whether Pikiell showed improvement over Eddie's last year. Of course he did. No one disputes that. He appears to be a much better coach.
But that's not what we were discussing. The question was whether, as it was put, "it starts with talent." And Pikiell's season answers that question too. That and common sense. 3-15. Last place. Meaning every other team in the conference had a better year.
You can't compete in the B1G without a roster of B1G talent. You can't. Now maybe Pikiell will show himself to be a better coach than the average B1G coach, and therefore he will take his roster farther than other B1G coaches would. But he isn't going to take an America East roster and place in the top half of the B1G. To do that, he's going to have to recruit well. And he hasn't shown yet that he can.
Now, he hasn’t had enough time to show it. So it would be silly to conclude at this point that he can’t recruit the players we need. But, despite how well he and his staff coached last year, you also can’t yet conclude that he will recruit well enough. We just have to wait and watch.
Can someone say that he won't develop into a mike williams type player? I also think there is an assumption on this board that if you don't come in as a Freshman starter/blue chipper you suck. I think with a legit staff you will see Thaim, Bullock and these other guys make big leaps in year 1,2,3.
OK, people--one more time: RU has had major problems since Mulcahy fired Gary Waters. After a legacy of Fred Hill Jr, Mike Rice and Eddie Jordan the past several years, and the accompanying bad seasons, bad press and bad vibes, you expected the new staff to sign winners immediately? It is going to be a process, and the first sign is that we landed a 3-star center. Bullock is a perfect B1G guy off the bench. A little heft, a little attitude, and a penchant for the dirty work is what we want from him. The guy was All-state.
TL
TL
Willis - I think your position is rationale and I get it. But i do think there is some nuance. for example, to use 1 year of results isn't enough IMO. Meaning, even if Pikiell pulled in the same level of players over a few years (I don't think he will...I think we'll see a big uptick), I think he would eventually get us close to the midpoint of the B1G (perhaps even top 50%). Because he clearly uses a system and gets guys to play roles.
So, while I think talent is important, I do think good coaching - over time - will have an even bigger impact than what we saw this past year.
To be clear, I am not saying coaching trumps talent, just saying that it's not enough - IMO - to use this past year as the basis for your argument.
Scarlet, I understand your point in general. But there is no way that a roster like we had last year gets to the middle of the B1G no matter if Pikiell had been here 1 or 4 years.
not sure I agree...there were 3-4 games which we lost due to FT shooting alone...you will likely argue that's due to the talent, but per a post of mine a few months ago where I showed how almost all of our players FT %ages dropped (I am guessing due to emphasis on D and prob more S&C). Does this 'settle down' after a couple of years? probably. and then you factor in the same talent kids getting a few years in the same 'system' and can you chalk up a 1-2 more wins? that puts you right in the middle of the B1G
I am sure you will disagree, but I don't think you can simply dismiss it. to my point, you would need a few more years to see if true or not.
let's hope it's a moot point as Pikiell will recruit better.
The willis argument eventually goes away because then when we get B1G talent, (like everyone else), there are NBA talented kids mixed with the rest of the B1G talent. Then is really comes down to matchups, coaching and games truly come down to a couple of plays per half.
On Bullock, I would like to think he would play this year in the OOC schedule, but it's going to be a situation where he would have to defend someone consistently, before worrying about whether he is going to play guard or forward or be able to shoot a 3....
On Bullock, I would like to think he would play this year in the OOC schedule, but it's going to be a situation where he would have to defend someone consistently, before worrying about whether he is going to play guard or forward or be able to shoot a 3....
We had a first year coach. We had a roster that only had one Rivals Top 150 recruit. We had a roster of recruits built by the previous regime, and hence, not the fits that Pike may have wanted.
Yet, we still finished with our best B1G season to date.
We still exceeded the record of any Jordan coached team. We managed to avoid terrible WTF styke losses. We were competitive on the court.
You choose to focus on the negative. That speaks to your massive negativity which is nothing but a black hole that sucks the joy out of anything, rather than any true statement about coaching vs. talent.
If we had a coach that could recruit talent, you would be reversing your arguments based on a few losses we had to make a point that this coach proves that coaching is what we need.
When we win more conference games your tune will be, "We didn't finish in the Top Half of the Conference."
When we reach the top half, it will be, "We didn't make the tournament."
When we do that, you'll say, "We didn't do that well in the tournament."
You refuse to acknowledge the massive improvement coaching made, because it doesn't fit your negative defeatist whiny hater attitude.
There are fans that are not going to be happy until we make the NCAA's each and every year and then it will be that we didn't make enough Final Fours or bring home the National Title often enough....
It is the unfortunate aspect of sports for some fans that are dumbed down by the result, instead of the process....no one here is under the impression that RU isn't going to potentially finish last again this year....I certainly hope not, but would not place where a team finishes as some sort of gauge on where the program is.
Last year at this time, there was no real way other than to fix the culture and improve the roster while winning some games at the same time....Not one, not two, but all 3 aspects (winning, culture change and recruiting) were all changed in the last year....
That doesn't mean every recruit is a 5*, because for some fans, that's all that is important...but the process for me is much more rewarding to see a Colorado over the years improve and to see Northwestern make the strides they did in the last 4 years....
In willis' world, NW arrived out of nowhere, when it took all of the last 3 years of difficult losses, injuries, falling short in Chris Collins first 2 years while doing a lot of the same things we are doing now.
It's not that willis is wrong, it's just a poor way of defining happy or where you are in the grand scheme of things...larger picture, we are trending up, facilities are on the way, recruiting is up, talent is up and the B1G share looms sooner than later.
There are a lot of places we could be (Boston College, Syracuse, UConn or some other former BE or current BE teams that are gradually eroding, while RU is trending up....The key for our trend upward is we will then have a revenue stream to compensate the coaches in basketball and impact things to stay ahead of schedule.
A discussion on the importance of recruiting better talent has become something else for you. I'm not sure what it is, but this kind of sniping doesn't interest me.
Similar threads
