bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,537 
|
Post by bostonfan on Jan 18, 2017 9:13:31 GMT -5
Hypothetically, what would the market for JT3's coaching services look like if he were a free agent? Hypothetically, I actually think there'd be a good market for JT3. I've said this before and gotten a lot of flack from others here, but JT3's record aside from the last two seasons would eclipse nearly any other coach out there on the market. Yes, it would be a risky hire for other programs in some ways, but the potential upside would make it worth it. I think, if he wanted to, he could easily get a high major job. I'm not sure he'd get the same salary, but I think he'd get plenty. I realize the JT3 haters on here will think this is irrational, but it's not. He's an accomplished coach who has hit a rough patch, but that doesn't mean he's not marketable. As an example, keep in mind that Dave Leitao got rehired after much greater failures than anything JT3 has had. JT3 would be highly marketable and probably one of the biggest names out on the market if he wanted a new job. I don't see JT III leaving Georgetown to coach anywhere else. Why would he? Is it possible that he hears the whispers and knows the alumni is upset and that the program seems to be going in the wrong direction and he decides that it might be better for him and the school for him to move on to another position in the school or to the TV booth? I think that is possible, especially if the school administration has a frank talk with him and tells him the results from the last few years are not acceptable. He may decide it is better for him and his family legacy to leave on his own terms and help with the transition to a new coach. Will this happen? Doubtful... |
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jan 18, 2017 9:24:32 GMT -5
Hypothetically, I actually think there'd be a good market for JT3. I've said this before and gotten a lot of flack from others here, but JT3's record aside from the last two seasons would eclipse nearly any other coach out there on the market. Yes, it would be a risky hire for other programs in some ways, but the potential upside would make it worth it. I think, if he wanted to, he could easily get a high major job. I'm not sure he'd get the same salary, but I think he'd get plenty. I realize the JT3 haters on here will think this is irrational, but it's not. He's an accomplished coach who has hit a rough patch, but that doesn't mean he's not marketable. As an example, keep in mind that Dave Leitao got rehired after much greater failures than anything JT3 has had. JT3 would be highly marketable and probably one of the biggest names out on the market if he wanted a new job. I don't see JT III leaving Georgetown to coach anywhere else. Why would he? Is it possible that he hears the whispers and knows the alumni is upset and that the program seems to be going in the wrong direction and he decides that it might be better for him and the school for him to move on to another position in the school or to the TV booth? I think that is possible, especially if the school administration has a frank talk with him and tells him the results from the last few years are not acceptable. He may decide it is better for him and his family legacy to leave on his own terms and help with the transition to a new coach. Will this happen? Doubtful... III seems like a genuine guy. If he feels like he can't right the ship, he might do it. He doesn't look well coaching these days. |
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Jan 18, 2017 10:23:31 GMT -5
I find it hard to beleive some of this was not discussed and considered prior to III being hired. The biggest issue with hiring the son of a legend occurs if the son fails; everyone had to be going into this with their eyes open to that possibility. I cannot comprehend how that obvious risk would not have been discussed. Of course this was long forgotten because of the early success III had, but it must have still been discussed.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,605
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 18, 2017 10:30:10 GMT -5
I doubt it, but hypothetically speaking, in your scenario how much would he ask for in terms of compensation? Also, hypothetically speaking, would a person raised in DC and living there for the last decade+ with a summer home in Martha's Vineyard ever consider going to Iowa, Nebraska or similar to coach college bball? Whether he'd want to go somewhere else to coach is completely unrelated to whether there'd be demand elsewhere for his services, right? If he voluntarily doesn't want to leave the area that's not evidence in any way that he isn't marketable. As for his marketability, I guess I fall somewhere in between the two of you. For sure, he'd be a top, top, top candidate at a high-level mid-majorish program (think an AAC or A-10 school). I think that's the most typical career path -- you regain your reputation by winning somewhere (anywhere) and then go back up to the big boys. But there is plenty of precedent for immediately (or close to immediately) getting a high-major job, usually at a "bad" high-major school. The first name that came to my head was Bruce Weber. Weber had terrific early success at Illinois: four straight NCAAs, including a Final Four. He gets canned after then having two NCAA bids (and no Sweet 16s) in the following five years. Fairly similar career path to JTIII. He immediately gets a job at major college Kansas State (which was actually pretty darned good when they hired him -- Huggins had just left and they'd been to the NCAAs a bunch of years in a row). Weber makes just under $2M per year. The average SEC coach (if you take Calipari out) makes about the same. So...that would be the market for his salary. Less then he makes now, but still a hell of a lot. I mentioned Iowa, Nebraska and the like because, if you're not willing to go to schools there, you narrowed your own list. In that case, marketability is irrelevant. I don't agree with you with the "high-level mid-majorish", but let's agree that anywhere else he goes (maybe excluding the Ivy League), he'll have a short leash in terms of getting results and the door. |
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Jan 18, 2017 10:33:03 GMT -5
I don't see JT III leaving Georgetown to coach anywhere else. Why would he? Is it possible that he hears the whispers and knows the alumni is upset and that the program seems to be going in the wrong direction and he decides that it might be better for him and the school for him to move on to another position in the school or to the TV booth? I think that is possible, especially if the school administration has a frank talk with him and tells him the results from the last few years are not acceptable. He may decide it is better for him and his family legacy to leave on his own terms and help with the transition to a new coach. Will this happen? Doubtful... III seems like a genuine guy. If he feels like he can't right the ship, he might do it. He doesn't look well coaching these days. III does look and sound miserable, and I think it is because he felt pressure to change the way he was taught to coach by Pete Carril. I am sure his dad was not quiet about the shortcomings of his teams and their NCAA performance. All the weight to change finally got to him and he has spun off in this new direction that he is obviously not comfortable teaching without a strong vision or strategy. Honestly, the best basketball career move for III would be to resign and take a new job away from DC where he could return to his roots, which as we all recall are lightyears away from the way JT2 coached and the way many GU fans want him to play. When III was his own man and did it the way he knew how, with a strong sense of purpose/vision, the team performed well, with the exception of March. It is probably too late to go back to his real style of play at GU, so he will either suffer through this forced change and hope in the long-term it pays out or he will say "enough" to all involved, including his dad, and go find a place where he can run a program the way he wants. |
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 18, 2017 11:12:12 GMT -5
III seems like a genuine guy. If he feels like he can't right the ship, he might do it. He doesn't look well coaching these days. III does look and sound miserable, and I think it is because he felt pressure to change the way he was taught to coach by Pete Carril. I am sure his dad was not quiet about the shortcomings of his teams and their NCAA performance. All the weight to change finally got to him and he has spun off in this new direction that he is obviously not comfortable teaching without a strong vision or strategy. Honestly, the best basketball career move for III would be to resign and take a new job away from DC where he could return to his roots, which as we all recall are lightyears away from the way JT2 coached and the way many GU fans want him to play. When III was his own man and did it the way he knew how, with a strong sense of purpose/vision, the team performed well, with the exception of March. It is probably too late to go back to his real style of play at GU, so he will either suffer through this forced change and hope in the long-term it pays out or he will say "enough" to all involved, including his dad, and go find a place where he can run a program the way he wants. What's interesting (to me) is that he's changed a lot the past few years and, at the same time, not changed a lot. For sure, he's tried a lot of different stuff defensively this year, but I think he's always adjusted defensively at least in the half court. We've had years where we've played lots of zone, years where we've played a lot of aggressive man, and we've dealt with the PNR differently different years. For sure, we've struggled with the PNR the past couple of years and struggled with fouling. But, I think that has more to do with personnel than with coaching adjustments. I get that the personnel is his responsibility, but that's different than figuring out what to do once you have the guys you have. This year, really for the first time, he's tried different full-court presses. I think we've handled that pretty well (again, not in the sense that they've worked -- they largely haven't -- but in the sense that we've tried a bunch of different things and then when they haven't worked, we've tried something else, even within a single game). I guess the bottom line for me is that defensively, he's always been pretty flexible, and his problem the past few years hasn't been Xs and Os but personnel. We just haven't found any defense that can fit the guys that we have to have on the court to score any points at all. Sure, we probably can put a defensive unit on the floor that can do something well, but that unit can't score the ball. Offensively is the interesting part. For sure, this year we're trying to pay faster. We get the ball (either out of bounds or after a turnover) and we're looking to run. And if we don't get an easy transition basket, we're looking for a quick hitter before the D gets set. That's new. And it's necessarily unstructured. And I have no problem with it at all! I can't imagine anyone does, really. And -- if III gets another year - we ought to improve at that next year with another on-the-ball option that can score or dish in transition or secondary break options. Of course, we may lose one or more guys that are good at that too... The half-court sets are very similar this year as last year. We are in them less often, and are looking for shots once we're in them faster. But the principles are still the same. So, I don't know that he's really "less comfortable" with the half-court offense or that it's wildly different than how "he was taught." There's more PNR, and a bit more off-the-ball screening. But not a ton more. |
|
Highsmith
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,490
|
Post by Highsmith on Jan 18, 2017 11:45:28 GMT -5
Hypothetically, what would the market for JT3's coaching services look like if he were a free agent? Hypothetically, I actually think there'd be a good market for JT3. I've said this before and gotten a lot of flack from others here, but JT3's record aside from the last two seasons would eclipse nearly any other coach out there on the market. Yes, it would be a risky hire for other programs in some ways, but the potential upside would make it worth it. I think, if he wanted to, he could easily get a high major job. I'm not sure he'd get the same salary, but I think he'd get plenty. I realize the JT3 haters on here will think this is irrational, but it's not. He's an accomplished coach who has hit a rough patch, but that doesn't mean he's not marketable. As an example, keep in mind that Dave Leitao got rehired after much greater failures than anything JT3 has had. JT3 would be highly marketable and probably one of the biggest names out on the market if he wanted a new job. The only thing I would say to go against this is to just watch his teams play over the past few years. Seeing a stagnant offense, poor defensive rotations, lack of energy/focus, etc. When you see that trend happening and then see the results turn from success into failure, that has to be a red flag to a program looking to hire. I'm sure schools would take a chance, but there has to be some concern as to what has happened with his teams lately. |
|
Highsmith
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,490
|
Post by Highsmith on Jan 18, 2017 11:48:35 GMT -5
I find it hard to beleive some of this was not discussed and considered prior to III being hired. The biggest issue with hiring the son of a legend occurs if the son fails; everyone had to be going into this with their eyes open to that possibility. I cannot comprehend how that obvious risk would not have been discussed. Of course this was long forgotten because of the early success III had, but it must have still been discussed. Kind of like a pre-nup! |
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Jan 18, 2017 12:16:48 GMT -5
aleutianhoya, if you look back at the offense his first 5 years it bares no resemblance to what you see on the court today. That offense had much more motion, much more patience to find the best shot. Defensively, III wanted a physical defense, but one that did not press or force turnovers. It simply forced you into taking bad shots. That is how III started.
Over time we have watched III change the way he recruits several times in a reactive way. Remember that phase he went through where he decided he would recruit long, athletic players after watching poor defensive players like Austin Freeman get shredded in March? Now, he appears to be prioritizing faster guards/scorers to fit into this faster, unstructured offense. It just keeps evolving and changing.
Perhaps top recruits did not want to play the Princeton offense, but I think we have seen enough mid-majors and non-Kentucky teams find success simply by recruiting the best players for their system. III decided changing both his system and recruiting target was the way to go. I would argue it has been a complete, chaotic failure.
So if you do not want to buy my hypothesis that he has gone away from what he knows and can actually teach, then can we both agree that III's actions at least indicate he lacks any consistent long-term approach or vision in the way he wants the team to look and perform?
As I posted yesterday, all the great coaches have an identifiable system they teach, the consistency leads to success on the court and in recruiting. If III is just going to continue to evolve and change, it simply won't work. When things are crap we all want change, but continual change does not yield success any better.
|
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 18, 2017 12:47:09 GMT -5
aleutianhoya, if you look back at the offense his first 5 years it bares no resemblance to what you see on the court today. That offense had much more motion, much more patience to find the best shot. Defensively, III wanted a physical defense, but one that did not press or force turnovers. It simply forced you into taking bad shots. That is how III started. Over time we have watched III change the way he recruits several times in a reactive way. Remember that phase he went through where he decided he would recruit long, athletic players after watching poor defensive players like Austin Freeman get shredded in March? Now, he appears to be prioritizing faster guards/scorers to fit into this faster, unstructured offense. It just keeps evolving and changing. Perhaps top recruits did not want to play the Princeton offense, but I think we have seen enough mid-majors and non-Kentucky teams find success simply by recruiting the best players for their system. III decided changing both his system and recruiting target was the way to go. I would argue it has been a complete, chaotic failure. So if you do not want to buy my hypothesis that he has gone away from what he knows and can actually teach, then can we both agree that III's actions at least indicate he lacks any consistent long-term approach or vision in the way he wants the team to look and perform? As I posted yesterday, all the great coaches have an identifiable system they teach, the consistency leads to success on the court and in recruiting. If III is just going to continue to evolve and change, it simply won't work. When things are crap we all want change, but continual change does not yield success any better. I think we largely agree, NC. I said the offense this year isn't much different than last year (once we get into the half court), but I agree that it looks a lot different than it did in the first five years. I think if we asked him his long-term on-court vision, he'd say something like what you described on defense (physical, sound, and conservative), but that he was agnostic as to the specific scheme (man/zone/etc.) to achieve that goal. I don't think he likes to press, but he realizes his teams have stunk defensively (either due to scheme or personnel or whatever) so he needs to try something else. Offensively, I think he'd say that his vision is the same as it's always been: He believes offensive basketball works best when players react to what the defense gives them in order to hunt the best shot, and that a motion-based offense is the best means to achieve that. Truly, I don't think that's changed. He's tweaked. We do run a handful of plays to get specific players shots (without knowing what the D is going to do) but we don't do that a ton. The principles are still the same -- it's why we continue to see a four or five with the ball at the elbow or the top of the key before proceeding to dribble-handoff or set a screen. Where I disagree is with the notion that all great coaches have an identifiable system they teach. Some do, and for some of those it's worked well. For sure, Boeheim has a very identifiable system on D, he's recruited to meet its needs, and he's had (I feel nauseous typing this) success. Coach K surely has a defensive system he likes to teach (very hard-nosed pressure man). But he's extremely adaptable on offense. He's run dribble-drive type offenses, offenses that encourage post play, and when he's had light-out shooting (e.g. JJ Redick), he's used things like double stacks and staggered screens to hunt open Js. I'm biased toward liking a motion style of offense simply because I find it aesthetically pleasing. I know others disagree (vehemently) and that's fine. But the challenge that he has offensively is that it really relies on being able to put at least four competent offensive players on the court at one time. It simply doesn't work to "react to and take what the D gives you" when they can easily take away something you stink at. On EDIT: As to recruiting, I think he's continually tried to find "bigger" players that are multi-dimensional. I think he probably thinks that a Jeff Green was the perfect player for his system. Not necessarily a five, but a bigger player that could certainly play at least the four that could draw out a bigger defender, create passing lanes, and exploit them. And if he has that, he's content to have a truly big five-man (a la Hibbert) that he can use primarily in the post. Otto sort of fit that mold. Monroe did too. And he's tried to find others (Whitt, Isaac, Lubick, etc.). He just hasn't really been able to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 18, 2017 12:51:39 GMT -5
Not that I have ever heard. But just for example, living in upstate NY, I have never heard nor read of any frequent simmer returns by Syracuse alumni to work out and play against/mentor current players. Can't say I have heard of many other schools doing it, although it isn't something I search out. I do like the theory of the alumni coming back and playing with the guys on our roster. It gives Georgetown a good family/support feeling for the guys on the team, I'm sure. But as a practical matter, has it really helped? It's not drawing huge recruits to the school, and with the guys we have, we are more often talking about "regression" year over year than anything else. I'm not trying to be jerk but, aside from that Georgetown feel, has the alumni presence really had any realized on-court effect? Would we be that much worse if they didn't show up during the summer? I can't imagine we would. I like the idea of mentorship, but Georgetown does a pretty good job of crafting fine young women and men who don't have access to these specific alumni. I was talking about mentoring regarding basketball and a potential career; I imagine the former players can address those issues a little better than the university in general. Has the return of these stars led to great recruiting of top-rated big men and on-court success? Not recently, anyway. But I would not disregard it on the whole. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 18, 2017 13:18:08 GMT -5
I doubt it, but hypothetically speaking, in your scenario how much would he ask for in terms of compensation? Also, hypothetically speaking, would a person raised in DC and living there for the last decade+ with a summer home in Martha's Vineyard ever consider going to Iowa, Nebraska or similar to coach college bball? I really have no idea what JT3 would do if he was no longer our basketball coach. (For the record, I think it's highly likely that he will be our coach at least through the 2017-2018 season regardless of what happens this season). Whether he would take a job in some other location is really impossible to know - and I am sure it would be a decision that also involves things like his children and wife that have nothing to do with basketball. But, as someone else said, even if JT3 won't go elsewhere that doesn't mean there's no market for it. That's up to him to figure out. As for compensation, I really have no idea. For what it's worth, there are some really average coaches who make a fair amount of money coaching simply because the market for coaches has exploded in the ten years. I mean, Enfield was a largely unknown entity until he beat Georgetown and made the Sweet 16 with USC, and he immediately got a $1 million offer. Now, I am not commenting on Enfield's quality as a coach (really too soon to say), but it's just an illustration of how schools are willing to throw money at people whose qualifications are questionable, at best. As others have said, I think the most likely landing spot for someone like JT3 would be a "bad" or mediocre major conference school (i.e., a school that's in a major conference but hasn't done well in basketball generally) or one of the better mid-major schools. At this point, I think the Ivy League is a stretch in that they would not pay nearly as much, and that's just a whole different game than what JT3 has been doing for over a decade. I am not saying JT3 wouldn't do Ivy League, but I don't think he'd have to if he chose to take the helm at a program with more potential. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 18, 2017 13:20:05 GMT -5
Hypothetically, I actually think there'd be a good market for JT3. I've said this before and gotten a lot of flack from others here, but JT3's record aside from the last two seasons would eclipse nearly any other coach out there on the market. Yes, it would be a risky hire for other programs in some ways, but the potential upside would make it worth it. I think, if he wanted to, he could easily get a high major job. I'm not sure he'd get the same salary, but I think he'd get plenty. I realize the JT3 haters on here will think this is irrational, but it's not. He's an accomplished coach who has hit a rough patch, but that doesn't mean he's not marketable. As an example, keep in mind that Dave Leitao got rehired after much greater failures than anything JT3 has had. JT3 would be highly marketable and probably one of the biggest names out on the market if he wanted a new job. I don't see JT III leaving Georgetown to coach anywhere else. Why would he? I don't think there's any chance he voluntarily steps down to coach elsewhere. My assumption for this hypothetical is that he's already no longer coaching at Georgetown. As I said in my recent post, I think he's going to be here at least through the 2017-2018 season regardless of on court performance. And, before people jump down my throat, that isn't my opinion on whether he should or not, it's just what I realistically think the university will do. |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,605
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 18, 2017 18:06:48 GMT -5
aleutianhoya, if you look back at the offense his first 5 years it bares no resemblance to what you see on the court today. That offense had much more motion, much more patience to find the best shot. Defensively, III wanted a physical defense, but one that did not press or force turnovers. It simply forced you into taking bad shots. That is how III started. Over time we have watched III change the way he recruits several times in a reactive way. Remember that phase he went through where he decided he would recruit long, athletic players after watching poor defensive players like Austin Freeman get shredded in March? Now, he appears to be prioritizing faster guards/scorers to fit into this faster, unstructured offense. It just keeps evolving and changing. Perhaps top recruits did not want to play the Princeton offense, but I think we have seen enough mid-majors and non-Kentucky teams find success simply by recruiting the best players for their system. III decided changing both his system and recruiting target was the way to go. I would argue it has been a complete, chaotic failure. So if you do not want to buy my hypothesis that he has gone away from what he knows and can actually teach, then can we both agree that III's actions at least indicate he lacks any consistent long-term approach or vision in the way he wants the team to look and perform? As I posted yesterday, all the great coaches have an identifiable system they teach, the consistency leads to success on the court and in recruiting. If III is just going to continue to evolve and change, it simply won't work. When things are crap we all want change, but continual change does not yield success any better. Job security has allowed it. Where else have you heard of a coach making fundamental changes to what he has known, played and taught all his life and still not have a set plan after 12 years, yet still be making top 10 money in the industry while failing miserably against his peers? No accountability. It's unbelievable to see how JT3 has the opportunity to try something else he doesn't command, while still making $3M. Everything changes, except him. When will he figure out how to play and recruit for it? Is it right to give him 4 more years so that he can have a different roster to see if he can succeed? Let's call it "The $12 Million Dollar Experiment". It's like if you have a family and are an average lawyer, and suddenly you decide you want to be an engineer to see if that works out better and have four years to find out, without any risk, all the while becoming a multi-millionaire. |
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Jan 18, 2017 20:18:20 GMT -5
aleutianhoya, if you look back at the offense his first 5 years it bares no resemblance to what you see on the court today. That offense had much more motion, much more patience to find the best shot. Defensively, III wanted a physical defense, but one that did not press or force turnovers. It simply forced you into taking bad shots. That is how III started. Over time we have watched III change the way he recruits several times in a reactive way. Remember that phase he went through where he decided he would recruit long, athletic players after watching poor defensive players like Austin Freeman get shredded in March? Now, he appears to be prioritizing faster guards/scorers to fit into this faster, unstructured offense. It just keeps evolving and changing. Perhaps top recruits did not want to play the Princeton offense, but I think we have seen enough mid-majors and non-Kentucky teams find success simply by recruiting the best players for their system. III decided changing both his system and recruiting target was the way to go. I would argue it has been a complete, chaotic failure. So if you do not want to buy my hypothesis that he has gone away from what he knows and can actually teach, then can we both agree that III's actions at least indicate he lacks any consistent long-term approach or vision in the way he wants the team to look and perform? As I posted yesterday, all the great coaches have an identifiable system they teach, the consistency leads to success on the court and in recruiting. If III is just going to continue to evolve and change, it simply won't work. When things are crap we all want change, but continual change does not yield success any better. Job security has allowed it. Where else have you heard of a coach making fundamental changes to what he has known, played and taught all his life and still not have a set plan after 12 years, yet still be making top 10 money in the industry while failing miserably against his peers? No accountability. It's unbelievable to see how JT3 has the opportunity to try something else he doesn't command, while still making $3M. Everything changes, except him. When will he figure out how to play and recruit for it? Is it right to give him 4 more years so that he can have a different roster to see if he can succeed? Let's call it "The $12 Million Dollar Experiment". It's like if you have a family and are an average lawyer, and suddenly you decide you want to be an engineer to see if that works out better and have four years to find out, without any risk, all the while becoming a multi-millionaire. This is very much on point. You don't pay for a coach who is now winging it with something he doesn't know. I think III must have no confidence as he's not familiar with what he's coaching. I think he does the right thing and walks away. Also, for those complaining about the players and not being III's fault I don't give that pass. He builds this team and you don't need a roster of McDonald's All Americans nor NBA players to win. You need to know what type of system you want to run and find the pieces that fit that system. There are plenty out there we have missed on. He should be at no disadvantage in this new BE in terms of recruiting relative to any other school/coach even before the Thompson Center. That is a fallacy and an excuse. He doesn't know what type of players he needs and now doesn't understand the system he's coaching. |
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jan 18, 2017 22:51:20 GMT -5
aleutianhoya, if you look back at the offense his first 5 years it bares no resemblance to what you see on the court today. That offense had much more motion, much more patience to find the best shot. Defensively, III wanted a physical defense, but one that did not press or force turnovers. It simply forced you into taking bad shots. That is how III started. Over time we have watched III change the way he recruits several times in a reactive way. Remember that phase he went through where he decided he would recruit long, athletic players after watching poor defensive players like Austin Freeman get shredded in March? Now, he appears to be prioritizing faster guards/scorers to fit into this faster, unstructured offense. It just keeps evolving and changing. Perhaps top recruits did not want to play the Princeton offense, but I think we have seen enough mid-majors and non-Kentucky teams find success simply by recruiting the best players for their system. III decided changing both his system and recruiting target was the way to go. I would argue it has been a complete, chaotic failure. So if you do not want to buy my hypothesis that he has gone away from what he knows and can actually teach, then can we both agree that III's actions at least indicate he lacks any consistent long-term approach or vision in the way he wants the team to look and perform? As I posted yesterday, all the great coaches have an identifiable system they teach, the consistency leads to success on the court and in recruiting. If III is just going to continue to evolve and change, it simply won't work. When things are crap we all want change, but continual change does not yield success any better. Job security has allowed it. Where else have you heard of a coach making fundamental changes to what he has known, played and taught all his life and still not have a set plan after 12 years, yet still be making top 10 money in the industry while failing miserably against his peers? No accountability. It's unbelievable to see how JT3 has the opportunity to try something else he doesn't command, while still making $3M. Everything changes, except him. When will he figure out how to play and recruit for it? Is it right to give him 4 more years so that he can have a different roster to see if he can succeed? Let's call it "The $12 Million Dollar Experiment". It's like if you have a family and are an average lawyer, and suddenly you decide you want to be an engineer to see if that works out better and have four years to find out, without any risk, all the while becoming a multi-millionaire. Coaches make changes all the time. You have to evolve. It is how you survive in the business. The reason III tried to evolve was because he saw the ceiling to the style of play he learned as a player and coach at Princeton. The early NCAA exits were proof of it. He wanted to get back to the Final Four and Sweet Sixteens. Those teams were a mix of his and Esh recruits. People were saying back then, wait until III gets all of his own recruits, and you will really see something. Well, we saw what happened with the Freeman, Monroe and Wright era. At that point, III has been tinkering with his staff and recruiting ever since. Mixed results, but still not even a round of Sixteen appearance.The last 2 years, he has pretty much scrapped his beloved Princeton and style of defense. So, he isn't doing this for kicks and giggles just to get paid. The man self-scouted himself and tried to improve the program. It is what coaches do. It hasn't worked as he envisioned. That is life. You take chances, but there is no guarantee. |
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Jan 18, 2017 22:55:28 GMT -5
Job security has allowed it. Where else have you heard of a coach making fundamental changes to what he has known, played and taught all his life and still not have a set plan after 12 years, yet still be making top 10 money in the industry while failing miserably against his peers? No accountability. It's unbelievable to see how JT3 has the opportunity to try something else he doesn't command, while still making $3M. Everything changes, except him. When will he figure out how to play and recruit for it? Is it right to give him 4 more years so that he can have a different roster to see if he can succeed? Let's call it "The $12 Million Dollar Experiment". It's like if you have a family and are an average lawyer, and suddenly you decide you want to be an engineer to see if that works out better and have four years to find out, without any risk, all the while becoming a multi-millionaire. Coaches make changes all the time. You have to evolve. It is how you survive in the business. The reason III tried to evolve was because he saw the ceiling to the style of play he learned as a player and coach at Princeton. The early NCAA exits were proof of it. He wanted to get back to the Final Four and Sweet Sixteens. Those teams were mix of his and Esh recruits. People were saying back then, wait until III gets all of his own recruits, and you will really see something. Well, we saw what happened with the Freeman, Monroe and Wright era. At that point, III has been tinkering with his staff and recruiting ever since. Mixed results, but still not even a round of Sixteen appearance.The last 2 years he has pretty much scrapped his beloved Princeton and style of defense. So, he isn't doing this for kicks and giggles just to get paid. The man self-scouted himself and tried to improve the program. It is what coaches do. It hasn't worked as he envisioned. That is life. You take chances, but there is no guarantee. Makes no sense. You can't take a coach who has played and been taught one way who then had success with that way to all of the sudden switch to something he hasn't spent time with and coach it successfully. All while under the microscope of a top 10 salary that doesn't really allow for the trial and error approach. I really think there is no plan for him in terms of recruiting, system and what it takes to work. He's just holding on and trying not to be too embarrassed. At this point that's not working as this new BE is destroying him. |
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Jan 19, 2017 7:07:07 GMT -5
Alot of you are giving up on JTIII, just like you gave Otto Porter up for dead when you left Otto by the side of the road during that snow storm. But Porter's back with a vengeance now and taking names.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,605
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 19, 2017 7:42:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jan 19, 2017 8:00:01 GMT -5
Simple answer: no. There are myriad obvious differences.
|
|
