Interesting conversation with a college sports insideR

[RUsojo]

Honestly, when you (you in general terms) finally understand that perception of Rutgers is/was so bad that literally no one can win here (when Eddie took over OR RIGHT NOW) outside of the top three coaches (maybe) in the country, you may be able to realize that "losing with no distractions" is EXACTLY what Rutgers basketball needed.

Bide time, wait for money, fill roster, and then go for it.

 

[Sideline20]

Rice did not do the "One Voice" thing....as far as I can tell there is only one coach on the planet that does that....EJ

 

[B1GNJHoops]

Honestly, when you (you in general terms) finally understand that perception of Rutgers is/was so bad that literally no one can win here (when Eddie took over OR RIGHT NOW) outside of the top three coaches (maybe) in the country, you may be able to realize that "losing with no distractions" is EXACTLY what Rutgers basketball needed.

Bide time, wait for money, fill roster, and then go for it.

Probably easier before the social media era lol.

 

[RU-Choppin-Ohio]

Rice did not do the "One Voice" thing....as far as I can tell there is only one coach on the planet that does that....EJ

I was not sure about Rice, I think someone else mentioned it. I don't agree with the One Voice thing.

 

[Mr Magoo]

I appreciate the honesty and always enjoy your posts. But, the hubris in your statement is shocking. It's pretty crazy for a hoops junky who coaches travel teams thinks he's qualified to determine that a coach who played at the highest level in college and in the NBA and then coached in the NBA for 20 years, with the likes of Pete Carill, et al., lacks essential basketball knowledge. Eddie would have had to have been blind, deaf and dumb to have learned the basics long ago.

Learning the basics is a lot different from being able to teach it to college players and get results with it.

 

[blockm2]

The idea that EJ doesn't know X's and O's is ludicrous.

Priority #1, #1A, # 1B, #1C.....Z in college basketball is recruiting. Always has been , always will be

I disagree (sort of).

Priority #1 is player development. It doesn't matter how you recruit (by rankings) as long as you get kids that end up a lot better 4 years down the road than they were when they started. It's teaching kids how to shoot the ball better, how to make smart decisions, how to properly defend, etc.

Recruiting is #2.

Xs and Os probably #3. There are lots of ways to win in college hoops, but unless you are either developing or recruiting the talent it is irrelevant how good you are at drawing up a play when the players on the floor can't execute it.

 

[PatrickRU92]

I disagree (sort of).

Priority #1 is player development. It doesn't matter how you recruit (by rankings) as long as you get kids that end up a lot better 4 years down the road than they were when they started. It's teaching kids how to shoot the ball better, how to make smart decisions, how to properly defend, etc.

.

I will rebut:

I disagree with you.

It is rare to bring in a player in who has a reputation of not being a good offensive player and make him into a good offensive player.
You don't turn a bad outside shooter into a good outside shooter.
You don't turn a poor defensive player into a great defensive player. you either play good defense or you don't
you don't turn a point guard into a crafty passer. If they aren't known for their passing skills in HS then its not likely they will turn into Larry Bird

Developing players is about taking a kid with a skill and making that skill better. This isn't "My Fair Lady" where the ugly duckling turns into the beautiful swan.

RU HAS FOR FAR TOO LONG GIVEN SCHOLARSHIPS TO PLAYERS WITH POOR BASELINE SKILLS. You can't do that and expect to win.

 

[bac2therac]

I disagree (sort of).

Priority #1 is player development. It doesn't matter how you recruit (by rankings) as long as you get kids that end up a lot better 4 years down the road than they were when they started. It's teaching kids how to shoot the ball better, how to make smart decisions, how to properly defend, etc.

Recruiting is #2.

Xs and Os probably #3. There are lots of ways to win in college hoops, but unless you are either developing or recruiting the talent it is irrelevant how good you are at drawing up a play when the players on the floor can't execute it.

good point....I have seen some excellent plays of beauty run by EJ. Incredible...but here is the problem, he does not have the players that will consistently be able to execute them night in and out and he has yet to show he can develop players beyond their abilities to be able to execute those plays more than a couple times

I think some have been fooled by watching bad basketball for so long that a Laurent cutter to the hoop for a layup is proof that Eddie is getting it done. Until we see those plays the norm rather than once in a blue moon and until Eddie comes up with a defensive gameplan the team will more than likely get blown out

 

[ColonelRutgers]

So how is Charlie Theokas doing these days?? :)

Best of Luck,
Groz

You mean how is Joe Boylan these days!

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Honestly, when you (you in general terms) finally understand that perception of Rutgers is/was so bad that literally no one can win here (when Eddie took over OR RIGHT NOW) outside of the top three coaches (maybe) in the country, you may be able to realize that "losing with no distractions" is EXACTLY what Rutgers basketball needed.

Bide time, wait for money, fill roster, and then go for it.

I understand this. I have been saying this. Still doesn't mean Eddie isnt a terrible CEO of Rutgers basketball.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Block m roots for a team that probably has one of the top coaches on the planet.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Ohio. Answer to your question is no or very little. I could very well be wrong. I hope I am.

Again maybe I am jaded. The picture painted behind the scene, by 1 HS coach, wasn't pretty. Sounds like a guy who isn't all in and has a bit of an ego.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Patrick you would agree you can get an average defender in to an above average defender OR take an average defender and allow him to be a weak one.

Mike Coburn was probably the worst defensive player I have ever seen under FHJ. Under Rice he wasn't bad...part was the defensive scheme.

 

[Groz]

I know Joe pretty well. Which pro teams did he work with? :)

Best of Luck,
Groz

 

[RU-Choppin-Ohio]

Ohio. Answer to your question is no or very little. I could very well be wrong. I hope I am.

Again maybe I am jaded. The picture painted behind the scene, by 1 HS coach, wasn't pretty. Sounds like a guy who isn't all in and has a bit of an ego.

There's only one guy here that knows what goes on at a Rutgers practice and he won't comment because he may lose access. Anything else is "mostly" speculation. And, no one knows what is going on in team or one on one film sessions when Jordan and staff do their post mortem after games. No one knows what type of teaching is going on.....again, anything posted here is speculation. The problem with speculation is that personal bias is included in many comments....positive or negative.

 

[Caliknight]

College basketball isn't just about recruiting. It is for the NC contenders, but that is about it. Plenty of teams dancing aren't highly talented. But, the they have coaches who not only know x's and o's, but they know how to recruit to that and get their teams to execute what they are teaching.

Does Eddie know x's and o's? Probably. But to date he is either recruiting the wrong players to his system or can't get them to buy in. At the end of the day, it's on him.

 

[willisneverrana43]

I thought Grunninger had passed on.

 

[yellowlot]

oh my this is too easy. Are you really trying to paint a picture that somehow only 3 of us on the board feel that this regime is going nowhere. Let me tell you its a lot more than that. Not to mention how absurd it is to somehow try to paint people feeling Eddie isn't getting the job done as some out of touch with reality

Reality is 0-29 vs rpi 250 schools...that's PUTRID

Reality is losses in 29 out of the last 35 games....and you know what since Newark is not D1, its 29 out of 34

Reality is 23 consecutive losses in Big 10 play

Reality is the best win this year is Howard

Reality is 12 losses in the Jordan era of 25 or greater

Reality is the team will most likely finish 6-26 meaning they would have lost 35 consecutive conference games and get this folks....FORTY ONE OUT OF 46 GAMES AGAINST DIVISION 1 PROGRAMS.....41 out of 46!....THAT IS SIMPLY ATROCIOUS

The idea that someone I and two others aren't dealing with reality or somehow are out to lunch. To me stats and results do not lie. Think what you want..and I feel that lately there seems to be a rallying around by Eddie by a lot of low volume posters and new faces here...so that's something I wonder about here. Look Eddie is a loyal son, it sucks its going down this way but separate feelings from results, we will be much further ahead of the game by cutting the cord now then let this play out.

can't disagree.....take these stats and add our road record in big east, there you have arguably the worst ream in major college hoops the last 25 years....that NIT FINAL, the billet shot vs WVU in BE tourney, and couple of nice BE wins by waters are NOW the GOOD OLE DAYS. just dreadful.

 

[blockm2]

I will rebut:

I disagree with you.

It is rare to bring in a player in who has a reputation of not being a good offensive player and make him into a good offensive player.
You don't turn a bad outside shooter into a good outside shooter.
You don't turn a poor defensive player into a great defensive player. you either play good defense or you don't
you don't turn a point guard into a crafty passer. If they aren't known for their passing skills in HS then its not likely they will turn into Larry Bird

Developing players is about taking a kid with a skill and making that skill better. This isn't "My Fair Lady" where the ugly duckling turns into the beautiful swan.

That isn't true.

Denzel Valentine shot 28% on 3s as a freshman. He's over 40% the last 2 years.
Frank Kaminsky went from a mediocre 3 star recruit who spent a few years playing 5-10 mpg off the bench to national POY.
When Mike Gesell got to Iowa he shot 32% on 3s and had a 1.5/1 asst/to ratio. As a senior he shoots 42% on 3s and has a 3.1 asst/to ratio.

Players learn to shoot, they learn to defend, they learn to pass all the time. Was Buddy Hield recruited as a star? Hell no. He scored 8 PPG as a freshman and shot 24% on 3s. Now as a senior he's scoring 26 PPG and shooting 52% on 3s and might be national POY.

Bo Ryan went more than a decade of never finishing worse than 4th in the Big Ten despite rarely having great recruits.

You can develop players to be a lot better than they were in high school. You just need to be a good coach to do it.

 

[PatrickRU92]

That isn't true.

Denzel Valentine shot 28% on 3s as a freshman. He's over 40% the last 2 years.
Frank Kaminsky went from a mediocre 3 star recruit who spent a few years playing 5-10 mpg off the bench to national POY.
When Mike Gesell got to Iowa he shot 32% on 3s and had a 1.5/1 asst/to ratio. As a senior he shoots 42% on 3s and has a 3.1 asst/to ratio.

Players learn to shoot, they learn to defend, they learn to pass all the time. Was Buddy Hield recruited as a star? Hell no. He scored 8 PPG as a freshman and shot 24% on 3s. Now as a senior he's scoring 26 PPG and shooting 52% on 3s and might be national POY.

Bo Ryan went more than a decade of never finishing worse than 4th in the Big Ten despite rarely having great recruits.

You can develop players to be a lot better than they were in high school. You just need to be a good coach to do it.

Not sure I would use Buddy Hield as an example to illustrate your point. While I'm not huge believer in bball rankings, he was a 4 star, 17th rated 2 guard in his class. Looks like he shot 49% (!!!) over his high school career. 49% as a 2 guard is pretty damn awesome.

Point is , Hield came in known as a great shooter. He wasn't some 6'4" lanky dude who lacked offensive skills. So what, he didn't shoot lights out as a freshman--thats not the point.

The point is he was known for his offense and shooting coming in. Sure he got better after 4 years, but that is to be expected.

 

[RU-ROCS]

RU Rocs...my son plays travel hockey so I am just a rec coach for basketball.

We have 5 problems unique to Eddie Jordan
1. He doesn't have the skill set to motivate 18-22 year olds. It is clear to me he is too nice and is too much a players coach. Too often he lets players play through effort mistakes

2. He is not a CEO, a leader of a multi faceted organization. His 8 month long hiring of Mike O'Koren was the red flag. Eddie thinks of himself as a coach. In addition, he doesn't trust/use his team enough.

3. Eddie is not well versed in the college game (X and O's). Doesn't know enough how to play different defenses and attack zones. His offensive sets against man to man is fine.

4. Hunger. He just doesn't have the energy or the motivation to pour everything in to the job. You can tell the last 3 years by interviews he doesn't prepare for opponents like the opposition. He certainly isn't hitting the recruiting trail hard enough and settles. I can site many examples of guys he settled on who never came here.

5. Evaluation of talent....this may be really wrapped up in point 2 and 4. Tougher to find a needle in the haystack when you don't look through enough hay. I'll also bet there isn't a recruiting strategy that is used (point 2). Seems like we are throwing spaghetti against the wall and taking whatever sticks. Just trying to fill out classes.

FIG -

A very good list. I can't disagree with most of it. That's not what I understood from your first post that suggested Eddie doesn't know the basics of basketball.

 

[blockm2]

Not sure I would use Buddy Hield as an example to illustrate your point. While I'm not huge believer in bball rankings, he was a 4 star, 17th rated 2 guard in his class. Looks like he shot 49% (!!!) over his high school career. 49% as a 2 guard is pretty damn awesome.

Point is , Hield came in known as a great shooter. He wasn't some 6'4" lanky dude who lacked offensive skills. So what, he didn't shoot lights out as a freshman--thats not the point.

The point is he was known for his offense and shooting coming in. Sure he got better after 4 years, but that is to be expected.

49% field goal percentage in HS is not only not elite, it's not even that impressive. He shot 34% on 3s as a HS senior. He was not some knock down elite shooter. He was a random 4 star recruit that didn't even get offered by any big time programs. Now he's probable NPOY.

The point is kids make big improvements over time if they get the right coaching and work hard.

 

[RU-Choppin-Ohio]

49% field goal percentage in HS is not only not elite, it's not even that impressive. He shot 34% on 3s as a HS senior. He was not some knock down elite shooter. He was a random 4 star recruit that didn't even get offered by any big time programs. Now he's probable NPOY.

The point is kids make big improvements over time if they get the right coaching and work hard.

Random 4 star recruit ?? I'm not even sure I know what that means.

He was rated #86 and the 17th best SG....sounds pretty good to me for a recruit

He is from Kansas and Elite Program Kansas did not offer because they got Ben McLemore, rated #34 and the 7th best SG.

 

[PatrickRU92]

49% for a 2 guard (who is expected to attempt a lot of 3 pointers which will lower overall shooting percentage) is pretty damn good. There aren't many guards who shoot 50%.

 

[blockm2]

49% for a 2 guard (who is expected to attempt a lot of 3 pointers which will lower overall shooting percentage) is pretty damn good. There aren't many guards who shoot 50%.

Top 100 type recruits generally are playing against greatly inferior competition in HS and they usually get plenty of easy dunks/layups to pad their shooting percentages. This ain't college competition. A 6'4" guard probably plays more than a few opponents where they are taller than the opposing center. It's also not like Hield was chucking a bunch of 3s in HS, he averaged just under 3 made per game. Most of his scoring was in the paint/transition. There are literally loads of kids that shot better in HS from the perimeter than he did.

 

[blockm2]

Random 4 star recruit ?? I'm not even sure I know what that means.

He was rated #86 and the 17th best SG....sounds pretty good to me for a recruit

He is from Kansas and Elite Program Kansas did not offer because they got Ben McLemore, rated #34 and the 7th best SG.

Random 4 star recruit means he was closer to being a 3 star kid than a 5 star. He was a good but not great prospect. He's now probable NPOY. If you look at every player currently on a roster in college, there are probably at least 300 that were rated higher in their class than Hield was. He has basically surpassed almost all of them. That's called player development. And Rivals were more bullish on him than most in HS. He didn't crack the RSCI top 100 for his class and 247's composite rank put him at #154 as a 3 star recruit. For reference, you'd be lucky to have even heard of maybe 2 or 3 of the shooting guards within 10 spots of him in their composite class rankings.



Now please note, I'm not saying that any lump of clay can be turned into a national POY by a great coach. I'm not. I'm saying that getting higher rated recruits isn't always the most important thing for a coach. Lots of coaches have made hay consistently by getting lower rated recruits and developing them over time. Conversely, plenty of coaches have gotten great recruits and flopped with them.


Another star worth noting is Andrew Andrews for Washington, their 5th year senior PG. He was a 3 star recruit to Rivals and as a RS frosh he averaged 7 PPG while shooting 27% on 3s. As a 5th year senior, he leads the Pac 12 in scoring at 22 PPG and shoots 40% behind the arc. He is an elite player, but somehow wasn't an elite recruit.

Players can improve all areas of their play in college. They can learn to shoot and pass and defend. If you think they can't, you've been watching bad coaches for too long.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

4 things needed for players to improve (IM not so HO)

1. player has to want and put the time in
2. coaches need to do their thing
3. you need a full program with frosh,soph,jr and sr so that someone entering the program has competition and can be mentored by people who have "been there"
4. there has to be a culture, a way of doing things the right way. it needs to be understood things like the type of intensity required in practice and games to get minutes. Minutes are never given they are earned.

Looking at Corey Sanders #3 and #4 are almost immediately against him. His minutes from Day 1 (actually Day 2) were given to him. He doesn't have another player on the roster that plays his position.

 

[JPhoboken]

4. Hunger. He just doesn't have the energy or the motivation to pour everything in to the job. You can tell the last 3 years by interviews he doesn't prepare for opponents like the opposition. He certainly isn't hitting the recruiting trail hard enough and settles. I can site many examples of guys he settled on who never came here.

I like Eddie, loyal son and all that, but I think #4 is the biggest issue. Successful college coaches live it, and are out every night watching games. Is this Eddie?

 

[blockm2]

4 things needed for players to improve (IM not so HO)

1. player has to want and put the time in
2. coaches need to do their thing
3. you need a full program with frosh,soph,jr and sr so that someone entering the program has competition and can be mentored by people who have "been there"
4. there has to be a culture, a way of doing things the right way. it needs to be understood things like the type of intensity required in practice and games to get minutes. Minutes are never given they are earned.

Looking at Corey Sanders #3 and #4 are almost immediately against him. His minutes from Day 1 (actually Day 2) were given to him. He doesn't have another player on the roster that plays his position.

I think it's 2 things.

1) the right coach
2) the player willing to listen and do the work

You don't need a full program, you don't need a pre-existing culture. Those things get established by the right coach. They aren't prerequisites to getting started. When John Beilein started at Michigan he took over a program that hadn't been to the NCAA tournament in a decade with no basketball practice facility, an outdated arena, and he was getting recruits over Valpo and Appalachian State. Those kids came in with no culture, no full program, none of that. And then 4 years later they were starting on a team that won a share of a Big Ten title.

A good to great coach can overcome all of it. You just need the right coach and players. And those players don't have to be elite recruits.

 

[B1GNJHoops]

I think it's 2 things.

1) the right coach
2) the player willing to listen and do the work

You don't need a full program, you don't need a pre-existing culture. Those things get established by the right coach. They aren't prerequisites to getting started. When John Beilein started at Michigan he took over a program that hadn't been to the NCAA tournament in a decade with no basketball practice facility, an outdated arena, and he was getting recruits over Valpo and Appalachian State. Those kids came in with no culture, no full program, none of that. And then 4 years later they were starting on a team that won a share of a Big Ten title.

A good to great coach can overcome all of it. You just need the right coach and players. And those players don't have to be elite recruits.

Trouble is finding the right one. Maybe that's Lonergan.

 

[Vegas pj]

Patrick you would agree you can get an average defender in to an above average defender OR take an average defender and allow him to be a weak one.

Mike Coburn was probably the worst defensive player I have ever seen under FHJ. Under Rice he wasn't bad...part was the defensive scheme.

Most college coaches will tell you, thanks to the AAU circuit, the hardest thing for a player is to learn defense. That's why it's usually a blessing to get a kid coached by Bob Hurley Sr. or the like since its one less thing to worry about.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Blockm,

Why did Michigan struggle in belein 1st year?

I think you followed our program closely you'd think differently.

 

[bac2therac]

C Vivian Stringer says that defense is not a skill, its a desire

 

[Knightmoves]

You mean how is Joe Boylan these days!

Joe Quinlan wants to know why his name is not in the mix in this thread.

 

[wheezer]

the curious thing was Jordan's quote that they don't practice rebounding, if such quote is true....

 

[TDIrish27]

I think there's a culture you can create that can make teams play better defensively but at the end of the day you have to have the athleticism and size to defend the great player.

The game has changed offensively to 2 man game and high ball screens which are designed to get layups or 3's.

It's taken away a lot of the help defense of the past------2 guys need to defend the other 2 guys. That takes athleticism especially with the refs enforcing the hand check stuff.

 

[blockm2]

Blockm,

Why did Michigan struggle in belein 1st year?

I think you followed our program closely you'd think differently.

He took over a team that had gone 8-8 in Big Ten play with 4 senior starters the previous season. He had to replace all 4 seniors and managed to go 5-13 in Big Ten play. What else would you expect when you lose so much talent and only have 1 highly regarded freshman recruit that can come in and start? It wasn't really a struggle so much as meeting expectations.

By his 2nd season he not only made the NCAA tournament, he won a game and then lost in the next round in a close game to a loaded Oklahoma team with Blake Griffin.

While I personally think Jordan is a nothing in terms of coaching skill, that's not really relevant to my points in this thread. I just take issue with the idea that it's all about recruiting and players can't improve their skills in college. I think lots of coaches have a long history of getting players to improve in college.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Of course he wasn't going to win. My point is it can't be done quickly and it is a process that is built from the ground up.

Jordan from day 1 has played the most talented players.