Bullock

[Degaz-RU]

Cyrock's statement was simply that it "starts" with coaching. Not that it starts and ends with coaching. Or that good coaching is the most important thing. But that it "starts" with coaching.

How can anyone disagree with this premise? As a general proposition -- and of course there are exceptions -- if you don't have good to great coaching, it doesn't matter how much talent you have, you're just not going to be a good or great team.

If you want to talk about the overall formula for success, then of course you have to have talent to win and to make the NCAA tournament. But it starts with a good coach.

If you get a good coach, AND he fills the roster with talent, good results will inevitably follow. Not a terribly controversial statement that coaching AND talent = likely success.

 

[cyrock3]

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.

Don't like being caught on your deceptive tactics, I guess.

The point is... after Year 1 showing much improvement, you are hating on Pikiell and mocking the team's improvement.

This is not an argument on improving talent. This is an argument by you devaluing the team's season last season.

 

[Scarlet Shack]

Willis

I do get what you are saying....we NEED more talent....but I do think you actually have to see what happens in the second year...to see how much a full off season and a full off season of S&C does....

Keep in mind, coming into LAST year...we STILL were a ridic inexperienced team and we really closed the competitive gap as the year went on. Teams actually had to play WELL to beat us and not just show up and get an auto W by double digits .

Coming in last year
Sanders-1 year of legit experience
Laurent-1 year of legit experience
Williams-2 years of legit experience
Johnson-2 years of legit experience ..but not high quantities of minutes at Kansas State

Gettys was a 5th year senior but did not play super quantities of minutes before
Freeman was a JUCO and played a few game at the division one the previous year...
Sa was a JUCO has never played at the division one level
Diallo and Doorson were coming off injuries and still had limited experience
Thiam, Onamuyri were frosh

Point is...we have a roster full or players who played last year who were inexperienced and had not played ...and I think that a development of the players in year could yield a better result on the court and getting out of the basement and getting closer to the middle of the pack

We will finally NOT be an inexperienced team on the floor and let's see what these guys can do...

And see if the coaching can cut this gap a lot

 

[willisneverrana43]

. . .
. . . you are hating on Pikiell and mocking the team's improvement.
. . . .

Oh boy.

 

[AshCatchEm]

And we finished last in the conference with only 3 wins. Next.

You really must be dense if you didn't see the massive progress in last year's team compared to the year before. It was obvious to anyone with eyes and half a brain, so I'm sorry if you find yourself lacking in those areas.

 

[willisneverrana43]

You really must be dense if you didn't see the massive progress in last year's team compared to the year before. It was obvious to anyone with eyes and half a brain, so I'm sorry if you find yourself lacking in those areas.

You're having trouble connecting the point that you just made with the point I've made.

 

[RUChoppin]

There seems to be two unrelated arguments in this thread, passing like ships in the night.

Pikiell has certainly raised the level of coaching at Rutgers, and the team has shown marked improvement in play. That's all positive news.

Even with marked improvement from both the coaching staff and team, though, we still didn't improve our conference standing.

One can be bullish on Pikiell and feel he's a great coach, but still believe that any upward movement within the conference must start with improvements in the talent pool.

The whole "it starts with" argument isn't really meaningful, since it takes both to succeed. Great coaching without B1G-level talent isn't going to move us up the standings.... nor is B1G-level talent paired with poor coaching.

It looks like we have a coaching staff that can get more out of the players on the roster and help them improve - which is great news. Now they have to boost the baseline talent level through recruiting, too, before we start vying for "mid-pack B1G" status.

 

[willisneverrana43]

Choppin, agree.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

There seems to be two unrelated arguments in this thread, passing like ships in the night.

Pikiell has certainly raised the level of coaching at Rutgers, and the team has shown marked improvement in play. That's all positive news.

Even with marked improvement from both the coaching staff and team, though, we still didn't improve our conference standing.

One can be bullish on Pikiell and feel he's a great coach, but still believe that any upward movement within the conference must start with improvements in the talent pool.

The whole "it starts with" argument isn't really meaningful, since it takes both to succeed. Great coaching without B1G-level talent isn't going to move us up the standings.... nor is B1G-level talent paired with poor coaching.

It looks like we have a coaching staff that can get more out of the players on the roster and help them improve - which is great news. Now they have to boost the baseline talent level through recruiting, too, before we start vying for "mid-pack B1G" status.

So if RU finishes 14th this year and many would agree that as of today, this years roster is likely a little weaker than last years (no Nigel replaced by an unproven Baker) and Gettys was replaced by ????, what metric would a fan place on Year 2 other than finishing 12th or even 13th??

There are a bunch of reasons that can cause a team to finish a little higher in the standings....some of which have been posted here.

This time next year, the same conversation will take place because we would be losing three starters (likely Sanders, unless something quirky happens and he stays for a 4th season, Mike Williams and Deshawn Freeman)......plus the potential that Doorson uses his eligibility for a 5th season beyond RU and Sa also graduates as well.

I would argue that it is likely that the team improves it's rankings this year vs Year 3 (the following year), when you have 3 underclassmen replacing three upperclassmen. The key is whether the recruiting cycle this summer and into 2018, provides players that can at least match or come close to the departing seniors in ability.

Then the argument would be that there is no improvement in Year 3, despite recruiting being better, but your replacing seniors with freshman etc etc....the cycle of what has to happen is a little dictated by where RU is with recruiting but also taking and improving the pieces (whether existing or recruited by this staff).....

Fans need to be careful of saying "By Year 3 or by Year 4 etc....".....I would argue for taking another sit out transfer for the remaining spot and taking the lumps if we are short handed with just Sa, Myles Johnson as your bigs, if Doorson is limited. If that transfer in is an existing freshman (ala Vance Jackson), then you solve the potential dropoff in 2018, with a starting caliber player....taking a grad transfer might solve 2017-18's season, but it's a tough decision....Ideally you land both a Top 8 rotational player as a grad transfer and do the same in 2018 recruiting with a freshman or JUCO etc....I think that's the goal right now....try and add value for Year 2 but can you add a piece as a freshman this late that will be an impact player beyond this one season??

I think this is why Bullock's spot or role is in question or TBD...(not that I'm isolating him specifically, same can be said for anyone that isn't a starter right now).....you may have an opportunity to add another player that can be in your Top 8-9 consistently this season AND you have a potential starting caliber piece available via transfer (whether Jackson or some other unknown piece).

The next 5-6 months (June through November) will really determine a lot.

 

[TODDB33]

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.

No your are not being totally fair. Our 3-15 record was really not indicative of how well this team played with lesser talent than every team we playedd in the Big. With some decent foul shooting we could had had 3 or 4 more wins. You say he hasn't shown he can recruit well enough yet. He is a proven winning coach in the past and did well at a school with a lot less resources than we have. You basically say in one spot he hasn't shown he can recruit and in another spot you say it would be silly to conclude at this point he cant recruit the players we need. What is it - either you think he will right the ship or you don't

 

[RUJMM78]

There seems to be two unrelated arguments in this thread, passing like ships in the night.

Pikiell has certainly raised the level of coaching at Rutgers, and the team has shown marked improvement in play. That's all positive news.

Even with marked improvement from both the coaching staff and team, though, we still didn't improve our conference standing.

One can be bullish on Pikiell and feel he's a great coach, but still believe that any upward movement within the conference must start with improvements in the talent pool.

The whole "it starts with" argument isn't really meaningful, since it takes both to succeed. Great coaching without B1G-level talent isn't going to move us up the standings.... nor is B1G-level talent paired with poor coaching.

It looks like we have a coaching staff that can get more out of the players on the roster and help them improve - which is great news. Now they have to boost the baseline talent level through recruiting, too, before we start vying for "mid-pack B1G" status.

I like the way you define the two fold need of coaching and talent and having only one won't significantly improve the current situation.History has shown boosting the baseline talent level has been a difficult task for every Rutgers mens basketball coach and the results on the court support that opinion.

 

[RUChoppin]

So if RU finishes 14th this year and many would agree that as of today, this years roster is likely a little weaker than last years (no Nigel replaced by an unproven Baker) and Gettys was replaced by ????, what metric would a fan place on Year 2 other than finishing 12th or even 13th??

There are a bunch of reasons that can cause a team to finish a little higher in the standings....some of which have been posted here.

I'm not talking about finishing "a little higher" but truly "moving up in the standings". A 13th place finish isn't really much different than a 14th place finish, or a 12th place finish. It's still in the league basement. If we're going to move up to the 6th-9th level in the league, and do it consistently, it will require upgrading the overall talent pool.

That's not a knock on Pikiell's coaching at all - coaching is just a part of the overall equation. If we upgraded the talent but had poor coaching, it also wouldn't significantly move the needle.

This isn't about "Year 2"... but the overall direction of the program. If we're going to become a perennial contender in the league, finishing in the middle of the pack with occasional higher finishes, it's not going to happen on the strength of coaching alone.

 

[willisneverrana43]

No your are not being totally fair. Our 3-15 record was really not indicative of how well this team played with lesser talent than every team we playedd in the Big. . . .

That's a wonderful circle you've drawn there.

 

[TODDB33]

That's a wonderful circle you've drawn there.

Thank you but do you think he rights the ship

 

[willisneverrana43]

. . . You basically say in one spot he hasn't shown he can recruit and in another spot you say it would be silly to conclude at this point he cant recruit the players we need. . . .

Is it really the case that you believe these are inconsistent? Really?

Also, do you also believe that it's necessary to announce a conclusion on a new coach after one season? Frankly, the only thing I'm more certain about than the fact that I don't know whether Pikiell will ultimately be successful is that you don't know. Nor does anyone here. Or anywhere.

One thing I do know, however, is that Pikiell is going to have to recruit well to do it.

 

[bowlgoal]

Not sure that is totally fair.
. . . .

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.

Hasn't had enough time to show it? He's been here about 2 minutes and I'm sorry but the improvement he showed from the Jordan regime was nothing short of incredible. Obviously we need more talent but you first have to show those "talented" kids that you can coach before they take the leap of faith.

Chris Ash made a big splash coming here from the Urban Meyer coaching tree, etc., etc., etc. and based on what we see behind the scenes, it certainly looks like he knows what he's doing? But he clearly doesn't have trust yet based on the performance on the field. Pikiell gained that trust and we have kids looking at Rutgers like never before. Football had that for years based on a Schiano and we are still landing in top 10 lists for kids but not really close to getting most of them.

So, last place last year? Absolutely. But we had Wisconsin beat at the Garden and we were damn close to winning another 3 conference games with yes, inferior talent. That showed me all I need to know about Steve Pikiell. Defense and rebounding were non existent here for years. I say he closes on a damn good 2018 class and Rutgers is on its way to being a formidable big ten team as long as he's here.

 

[RUChoppin]

Hasn't had enough time to show it? He's been here about 2 minutes and I'm sorry but the improvement he showed from the Jordan regime was nothing short of incredible.

"Hasn't had enough time to show it" was in reference to recruiting well, not coaching well.

We've seen the improvement from an X's and O's perspective.. it'll take a little more time to see the improvement on signing day, and the jury's still out on what level of success we'll see there over time.

 

[mikefla]

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

Tom Leonard,,,even when i was NYinNJ I liked your comments ;-)