|
Post by michiganhoya on Feb 19, 2005 12:09:28 GMT -5
Am I the only person who really hopes that he gets the job so we can see how he does? I'm fairly convinced that he is a terrible coach and that most if not all of GU's problems are directly related to his inability to manage Xs and Os as well as his inability to inspire/motivate his player. I've never bought into DFW et al's contention that institutional shortcomings doomed the program long before Craig Esherick raised his first closed fist. In fact, by highlighting all of the other problems GU had during the Esherick era, DFW and cohorts basically made excuses for him.
With a new job, far away from GU and DC and everything else, Esherick has the opportunity to prove that he is a good coach. Yes, he can recruit. Yes, he can run a clean program (although who decided to recruit Harvey Thomas? and who recruited Kenny Brunner?). But can he take what he recruits and win? Not likely. But then again, I'm really biased. As a former and future season ticketholder, I suffered through many miserable evenings because (in my opinion at least) of Craig Esherick.
Good luck and good riddance!
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 19, 2005 12:09:45 GMT -5
THE QUOTE
Bashing Craig for saying he'd "be a heck of a coach" is probably unfair, and wouldn't be happening if not for that bizarre tirade that led to his departure from GU.
Probably, the reporter asked him if he thought he could do a good job -- in a place that is a different kind of college, different conference, drastically different geographic and cultural environment.
Craig probably responded that he'd be a "heck of a coach". No harm in that.
As for all the rest, geez, the guy is gone. We don't have to worry about him anymore. He did provide years of good service to GU as player and asst. coach. And he recruited this entire GU team with the exception of Wallace. It's not as though he left the cupboard totally bare.
IMHO, we should just leave the guy alone. If he gets a job.. good for him, and it will become apparent over time if he learned anything from his GU HC experience, and if he has the talent to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 19, 2005 13:09:54 GMT -5
Am I the only person who really hopes that he gets the job so we can see how he does? I'm fairly convinced that he is a terrible coach and that most if not all of GU's problems are directly related to his inability to manage Xs and Os as well as his inability to inspire/motivate his player. I've never bought into DFW et al's contention that institutional shortcomings doomed the program long before Craig Esherick raised his first closed fist. In fact, by highlighting all of the other problems GU had during the Esherick era, DFW and cohorts basically made excuses for him. With a new job, far away from GU and DC and everything else, Esherick has the opportunity to prove that he is a good coach. Yes, he can recruit. Yes, he can run a clean program (although who decided to recruit Harvey Thomas? and who recruited Kenny Brunner?). But can he take what he recruits and win? Not likely. But then again, I'm really biased. As a former and future season ticketholder, I suffered through many miserable evenings because (in my opinion at least) of Craig Esherick. Good luck and good riddance! Some good points in here, mich. I want Esh to get a coaching job because I'd like to see if he can prove the doubters wrong, myself included. We turned out to be right once, so let's see if he can up his batting average to .500. As my prior comments suggest, I agree with you about the systematic scapegoating of our facilities, institutional support, and, in some cases, assistant coaches, as a means of excusing the performance of the head coach. While all of these things are helpful in one way or another, the leadership comes from the top of the program with the head coach, and we have now seen what a positive change can do.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Feb 19, 2005 14:14:31 GMT -5
Tommy Amaker is and he had the same resume as Esherick. And they've done a fantastically sub .500 job under Amaker. That apparently slipped past you, but was the point of that statement. Tommy Amaker brought in a #1 recruiting class. That's why he's in a different league than Esherick. Esherick failed to deliver every one of his top targets (Maurice Williams?)
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,440
|
Post by lichoya68 on Feb 19, 2005 15:29:55 GMT -5
|
|
ShimmyJr
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 319
|
Post by ShimmyJr on Feb 19, 2005 15:45:05 GMT -5
jeff green aint so bad aint so bad go hoyas beat st johns This is an example of unecessary posting in a thread - this comment above is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand...[Edited.]. As a sidenote, being up here in michigan, amaker is safe for one more year, but that is it - there is a lot of rumbling about him, but he couldn't pry Daniel Horton's fingers off his girlfriend's throat - that and the injuries have decimated this team - watch them to make a major splash next year returning to full strength and having that #1 recruiting class as juniors
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Feb 19, 2005 15:55:33 GMT -5
No it isn't. TC pointed out a failure to land a top target of the staff - lic pointed out that Jeff Green was a pretty good guy that he landed.
Just because you see "lichoya68" and "jeff green" in the same post, doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
|
|
ShimmyJr
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 319
|
Post by ShimmyJr on Feb 19, 2005 16:04:07 GMT -5
you are the King of Editedbaggery - even if you are right, I would never give you credit.
|
|
ShimmyJr
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 319
|
Post by ShimmyJr on Feb 19, 2005 16:07:39 GMT -5
i love how the Monitors don't edit everything out - like they left "gery" so Joe had an idea of what he was King of...thank you for that little morsel Moderators
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Feb 19, 2005 17:33:08 GMT -5
I actually don't.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Feb 19, 2005 18:28:29 GMT -5
No it isn't. TC pointed out a failure to land a top target of the staff - lic pointed out that Jeff Green was a pretty good guy that he landed. Just because you see "lichoya68" and "jeff green" in the same post, doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Jeff Green is a good player. He was not a top recruit : home.nc.rr.com/rsci/RSCI_100_Final_2004.htm
|
|
GUHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by GUHoya07 on Feb 19, 2005 18:53:31 GMT -5
TC has a great point, although Jeff is one of the best freshmen in the country the fact that he was not ranked among the best players in his class made it much easier to recruit and sign him. I am very grateful that Esh and company were able to sign Jeff because he is absolutely incredible, but you have to wonder if Esh would have been able to get him if he had been ranked the #10 overall player in his class.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 19, 2005 19:18:15 GMT -5
That is one way of looking at it. To me, it is more important to look at the kids who are actually here and how good they are.
The measure isn't "winning recruiting battles", it is assembling a high quality roster. How you get there doesn't really matter -- other than playing within the NCAA rules.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Feb 19, 2005 19:20:05 GMT -5
That is one way of looking at it. To me, it is more important to look at the kids who are actually here and how good they are. The measure isn't "winning recruiting battles", it is assembling a high quality roster. How you get there doesn't really matter -- other than playing within the NCAA rules. Amen. Look at the rankings of the guys coming in next season (posted in another thread). Not that impressive. However, by all accounts I've seen these sound like good kids who can also play ball. Obviously, we'll see what happens, but the point is that I wouldn't put ANY stock in where players are ranked. What they do once they get here is eleven billionty times more important than what people thought of them on the way here.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Feb 19, 2005 19:24:45 GMT -5
That is one way of looking at it. To me, it is more important to look at the kids who are actually here and how good they are. The measure isn't "winning recruiting battles", it is assembling a high quality roster. How you get there doesn't really matter -- other than playing within the NCAA rules. The argument was that Craig Esherick was similar to Tommy Amaker in 2001. I don't think that's true, and I think it's because Amaker was a better recruiter.
|
|
GUHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by GUHoya07 on Feb 19, 2005 19:25:56 GMT -5
That is one way of looking at it. To me, it is more important to look at the kids who are actually here and how good they are. The measure isn't "winning recruiting battles", it is assembling a high quality roster. How you get there doesn't really matter -- other than playing within the NCAA rules. Obviously, but how many top programs do you see that don't sign any top ranked recruits and are able to stay at that elite level year in and year out? Not many I would have to assume. Al Skinner is doing an amazing job getting very talented guys that fly under the radar and he currently has a top 10 team, but without signing top recruits you will never have a program that is at the elite level year in and year out.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 19, 2005 19:26:29 GMT -5
Amen. Look at the rankings of the guys coming in next season (posted in another thread). Not that impressive. However, by all accounts I've seen these sound like good kids who can also play ball. Obviously, we'll see what happens, but the point is that I wouldn't put ANY stock in where players are ranked. What they do once they get here is eleven billionty times more important than what people thought of them on the way here. 1) HoopScoop isn't a good source for rankings. 2) A top Rivals analyst calls this a top 25 class with the addition of Sapp. It is an impressive class and deserves to be treated as such.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 19, 2005 19:28:20 GMT -5
That is one way of looking at it. To me, it is more important to look at the kids who are actually here and how good they are. The measure isn't "winning recruiting battles", it is assembling a high quality roster. How you get there doesn't really matter -- other than playing within the NCAA rules. The difference here is that the roster we currently have is not quality with Esherick at the helm, but it is with JT3 at the helm. JT3 has figured out to get more out of Esherick's older players (Bowman, Cook) than Esherick could, and he has done a great job thus far with Roy and Green. I don't think Esherick would have those guys at the same point as they are now.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Feb 19, 2005 19:39:17 GMT -5
1) HoopScoop isn't a good source for rankings. 2) A top Rivals analyst calls this a top 25 class with the addition of Sapp. It is an impressive class and deserves to be treated as such. 1) What makes HoopScoop so unreliable? The fact that they don't think highly of our recruits? 2) What makes this other analyst so reliable? The fact that they like our class? Point is - it's all irrelevant discussion until they suit up and step on the floor.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 19, 2005 19:41:53 GMT -5
1) What makes HoopScoop so unreliable? The fact that they don't think highly of our recruits? 2) What makes this other analyst so reliable? The fact that they like our class? Point is - it's all irrelevant discussion until they suit up and step on the floor. 1) For example, the HoopScoop editor, in the period of about a month, said that Goodridge would go to Pitt, GU, and MSU. Then, when Goodridge committed, he claimed to have been right all along. 2) That analyst has at least seen our recruits play, save Egerson.
|
|